No Reassessment on Mere Change of Opinion: Key Points and

When reading No Reassessment on Mere Change of Opinion: Key Points and, the important part is to keep the core facts intact while presenting the context in a clearer way for readers.

What This Update Means

Readers should treat this as a tax and compliance update, not as personal advice.

Key Reader Takeaways

• Supreme Court in ACIT vs Marico Ltd held that reassessment under Section 148 is invalid where the Assessing Officer had already examined the issue in original assessment…
• ACIT, the Supreme Court of India upheld the quashing of a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for AY 2014–15.
• During the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had raised specific queries on 25 September 2017, which were duly answered by the assessee through letters dated 10 October 2017 and 21 December 2017.
• After considering these responses, the AO passed the assessment order on 30 January 2018.

LAMORC DIGITAL Context

The detailed section below preserves the source-backed information so readers can review the full context and important details in one place.

In Marico Limited v. ACIT, the Supreme Court of India upheld the quashing of a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for AY 2014–15. During the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had raised specific queries on 25 September 2017, which were duly answered by the assessee through letters dated 10 October 2017 and 21 December 2017. After considering these responses, the AO passed the assessment order on 30 January 2018.

Subsequently, the Revenue sought to reopen the assessment through a notice dated 27 March 2019 on the very same issue. The Bombay High Court held that once a query is raised during assessment and the explanation is accepted—whether expressly discussed in the assessment order or not—it amounts to formation of an opinion by the Assessing Officer. Reopening such an issue would therefore amount to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible in law.

The Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning and dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition, reaffirming that reassessment cannot be used as a tool to revisit matters already examined in the original assessment proceedings.

FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER

In the present matter, the assessment order was passed on 30.01.2018 as regards the Assessment Year 2014-15

According to the record, certain queries were raised by the Assessing Officer on 25.09.2017 during the assessment proceedings which were responded to by the Assessee vide letters dated 10.10.2017 and 21.12.2017.

After considering said responses, the assessment order was passed on 30.01.2018

Subsequently, by notice dated 27.03.2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, the matter was sought to be re-opened. While accepting the challenge to the issuance of notice, the High Court in para 12 of its judgment observed as under:

“12. Thus we find that the reasons in support of the impugned notice is the very issue in respect of which the Assessing Officer has raised the query dated 25 September 2017 during the assessment proceedings and the Petitioner had responded to the same by its letters dated 10 December 2017 and 21 December 2017 justifying its stand. The non-rejection of the explanation in the Assessment Order would amount to the Assessing Officer accepting the view of the assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. Therefore, in these circumstances, the reasons in support of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and therefore would be completely without jurisdiction in the present facts. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 27 March 2019 is quashed and set-aside.”

In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere in the matter. This special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Readers should treat this as a tax and compliance update, not as personal advice.

This article is for general information based on available source information. It should not be considered legal, tax, investment, or financial advice.