HC Quashes I-T Order Against P. Chidambaram & Family & Held Reopening discriminatory

Karti P. Chidambaram Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Madras High Court)

In the instant case, the petitioner’s assessment for the subject assessment year was taken up for scrutiny. All primary facts were available with the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer completed the scrutiny assessment vide order dated 30.12.2011. After the expiry of four years, the impugned notice dated 31.03.2016 was issued. The petitioner requested for the copy of the reasons for reopening vide representation dated 13.04.2016. The respondent by communication dated 19.04.2016 furnished the reasons for reopening. On a perusal of the reasons, I find that the respondent on verification of the assessment records and the order sheet entries inferred that the Assessing Officer on scrutiny had failed to examine and deliberate on the correctness of the income reported under the head agricultural income. Further, the respondent would state that even though the assessee had derived the predominant portion of the agricultural income from sale of coffee seeds, the aspect as to whether the income so derived is completely exempt or is it a case falling under Rule 7B was also omitted to be verified. Added to this, the Assessing Officer was inspired by a direction issued by the ITAT in the case of one TC Abraham. Thus, on a mere reading on the reasons for reopening clearly show that there is no allegation against the petitioner that there has been omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that year. The so called reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is on the ground that the Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny assessment did not examine as to whether the entire agricultural income was completely exempted or not. This can hardly be a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as it is a clear case of change of opinion by the respondent. As pointed out in the case of Calcutta Discount Company Limited, the obligation on the part of the assessee does not extend beyond fully and truly disclosing all primary facts. It is for the Assessing Officer to take an inference on facts and law based on such disclosure. If according to the respondent, his predecessor did not come to a proper inference on the facts disclosed, it is no ground to reopen the assessment, as if permitted and it would amount to a clear case of change of opinion. In the light of the above discussion, the first issue framed for consideration is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the revenue.