CIT v Atul Mohan Bindal
(2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 58920091 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- Facts
- The assessee filed returns and original assessment was completed under S.143(3) The AO had considered and allowed certain deductions during original assessment. Subsequently, the CIT formed the view that the deductions were wrongly allowed.
- Issue
- Whether reassessment under S.147 can be initiated on a change of opinion when the issue was already considered
- Held
- S.147 does not permit reopening merely because the AO later forms a different opinion on the same facts.
- Principle
- Reassessment under S.147/148 requires the AO to have 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment; mere change of opinion is not permissible.
Facts
- The assessee filed returns and original assessment was completed under S.143(3)
- The AO had considered and allowed certain deductions during original assessment
- Subsequently, the CIT formed the view that the deductions were wrongly allowed
- Notice under S.148 was issued to reopen the assessment
- The assessee challenged the reopening as a mere change of opinion
Issues
- Whether reassessment under S.147 can be initiated on a change of opinion when the issue was already considered
- What constitutes "reason to believe" for valid reassessment
Held
- S.147 does not permit reopening merely because the AO later forms a different opinion on the same facts
- "Reason to believe" requires tangible material that was not available or not considered during original assessment
- Where the AO applied his mind to an issue and formed a view, reopening on the same material = change of opinion = impermissible
- Reassessment quashed
Ratio decidendi
The power to reassess is not a power to review. S.147 requires new tangible material or information establishing that income escaped assessment. If the same facts and same legal position were before the AO and he took a conscious view, merely because that view is later found debatable does not justify reopening.
Exam use
How to use it in an answer
- Cite in Tax Law questions on reassessment, S.147/148, and "reason to believe"
- Pair with Rajesh Jhaveri (2007) for the distinction between S.143(1) intimation and S.143(3) scrutiny reopening
- Essential for any question on the limits of reassessment jurisdiction
Cite this
Citation
CIT v Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 589Reported: (2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 589. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.