Lupin Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment without fresh tangible material based upon mere change of opinion is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, notice and consequential orders set aside.
Facts- The Petitioner challenges the notice dated 31 March 2021 issued by the first Respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking to reopen the assessment for A.Y. 2016-17 together with consequential notices and orders and order dated 30 November 2021 rejecting the Petitioner’s objections to the reopening of the assessment.
Conclusion- Held that no fresh tangible material could be said to have come to the knowledge of the assessing officer for reopening of the assessment. Admittedly, the Petitioner’s case was selected for scrutiny, and several queries were raised. In particular, the queries were raised regarding the claims under Section 35AC and deductions under Section 80G of the IT Act. Upon considering the Petitioner’s response, these claims were allowed in the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the IT Act.
Held that on the ground that some other view was possible, the assessing officer could not have changed his earlier opinion and, based upon such change of opinion, issued the impugned notice seeking to reopen the assessment. For all these reasons, the impugned notice and the consequential orders will have to be set aside.
