GLIMPSE OF A LATEST TAX VERDICT* Sri Jagannath Promoters and Builders v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Reported: [2022] 440 ITR 192 (Orissa) Dated: 26.10.2021 *Hon’ble Justice S. Muralidhar and Hon’ble Justice B.P. Routray* in the matters relating to *“Reassessment – Notice Validity – New and Tangible Material – Change of Opinion – Income Tax Act, 1961”* allowed the Writ Petition and

*GLIMPSE OF A LATEST TAX VERDICT*
Sri Jagannath Promoters and Builders v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Reported: [2022] 440 ITR 192 (Orissa)
Dated: 26.10.2021

*Hon’ble Justice S. Muralidhar and Hon’ble Justice B.P. Routray* in the matters relating to *“Reassessment – Notice Validity – New and Tangible Material – Change of Opinion – Income Tax Act, 1961”* allowed the Writ Petition and further observed and held as follows:

*Facts:*
Return of Income of had been filed by assessee and the same was scrutinized. Notice under. S.142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were responded to and books of accounts were produced; a questionnaire was also responded to. Assessment order was passed by assessing officer disallowing a specified amount on account of sundry creditors. Assessee went on appeal on the assessment order before CIT (Appeals) and the same was allowed. Subsequently, reassessment notice u/S. 148 was issued to the assessee. Reasons for reassessment was sought for by the assessee and the same was supplied. Thereafter, assessee filed this Writ Petition

*Findings:*
i) Referred to _CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)_, wherein the legal position of S.147 of the Act has been summarised.

ii) Reasons for reassessment did not show any new material that had been made available to the Department. The material already available had only been re-examined and there had been a clear change of opinion by the department.

iii) There was conscious application of mind by the department in the original assessment. In fact, a detailed questionnaire had been issued and had been responded by the assessee which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the “reason to believe” of the department in issuing S.148 Notice is based on mere “change of opinion” (referred – _Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Delhi)]_.