Case Law Details
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs ACIT/DCIT (Bombay High Court)
Admittedly, this is a case where the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act has also been completed. Hence, proviso to Section 147 of the Act shall apply. Respondents have to show that there was failure on the part of petitioner to truly and fully disclose material facts relevant for the assessment. We have considered the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and we have no doubt in concluding that respondents have failed in discharging its onus to show that petitioner has failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts. From the reasons itself as well as the documents annexed to the petition, it is quite clear that there has been full disclosure by petitioner. .
The entire basis for reopening is change of opinion and as held in various judgments an Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment even within a period of 4 years merely on the basis of a change of opinion.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 28th March 2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act), by which respondents state that they have reasons to believe that petitioner’s income chargeable to tax for A.Y.-2012-2013 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Petitioner is also impugning an order dated 13th November 2019 rejecting petitioner’s objections to the reopening of assessment for A.Y.-2012-2013.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
