1.1 S. 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer (AO)
to assess or re-assess the income chargeable to tax, if he has reason to believe
that income for relevant years has escaped assessment. This is popularly known
as power of reassessment.
1.2 Provisions of S. 147 have been substituted by the Direct
Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 with effect from 1-4-1989 (New Provisions).
Primarily, the New Provisions confer jurisdiction to reopen the reassessment,
when the AO, for whatever reason, has ‘reason to believe’ that the income has
escaped assessment.
1.2.1 Under the New Provisions, the above-referred power of
reassessment cannot be exercised after the end of four years from the end of the
relevant assessment year in cases where the original assessment is made
u/s.143(3) or S. 147, unless in such cases, the income chargeable to tax
has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure of the
assessee to make return u/s.139 or in response to notice u/s.142(1)/148 or by
reason of failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts
necessary for such assessment (‘failure to disclose material facts’). In this
write-up we are not concerned with this provision.
1.3 Prior to substitution of the provisions of S. 147 w.e.f.
1-4-1989 as aforesaid (i.e., New Provisions), S. 147 providing for
reassessment was divided into two separate clauses [(a) and (b)], which laid
down the circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the past
assessment years could be assessed or re-assessed (Old Provisions). Under the
Old Provisions, clause (a) empowered the AO to initiate proceedings for
re-assessment in cases where he has ‘reason to believe’ that by reason of the
omission or failure of the assessee to make return u/s.139 or by reason of the
‘failure to disclose the material facts’, the income chargeable to tax has
escaped assessment. Under clause (b) of the Old Provisions, the AO was empowered
to initiate reassessment proceedings if, in consequence of information in his
possession, he has ‘reason to believe’ that income chargeable to tax has escaped
assessment, even if there is no omission or failure on the part of the assessee
as mentioned in clause (a).
1.4 From the comparison of the Old Provisions with the New
Provisions relating to re-assessment, it would appear that to confer
jurisdiction under clause (a) of the Old Provisions, it would appear that two
conditions were required to be satisfied, namely, (i) the AO must have ‘reason
to believe’ that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and (ii) such
escapement has occurred by reason of ‘failure to disclose material facts’, etc.
on the part of the assessee. On the other hand, under the New Provisions, the
existence of only first condition (i.e., ‘reason to believe’) is
sufficient to confer the jurisdiction on the AO to initiate the reassessment
proceedings (except, of course, in cases covered by the circumstances mentioned
in Para 1.2.1 above).
1.5 Various issues are under debate with regard to powers of
the AO to make reassessment under the New Provisions. In large number of cases,
reassessment proceedings are being initiated merely on account of ‘change of
opinion’ on the issues decided at the time of original assessment. In such
cases, the issue has come up before the Courts in the past as to whether, under
the New Provisions, the AO is empowered to initiate reassessment proceedings on
a mere ‘change of opinion’. By and large, the Courts have taken a view that
reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on a mere ‘change of opinion’.
However, the issue still survives and in practice, such re-assessment
proceedings are being initiated on a mere ‘change of opinion’ by giving one
reason or the other.
1.6 Recently, the issue referred to in Para 1.5 above came up
for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd.
and the same is finally resolved by the Apex Court. Considering the importance
of the issue in day-to-day practice, it is thought fit to consider the said
judgment in this column.
CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 256 ITR 1
(Del.) — Full Bench :
2.1 In the above case, the issue referred in Para 1.5 above
was referred to the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court. In that case, the facts
were : The assessee had furnished the return of income for the A.Y. 1987-88 on
29-6-1987. The assessee had maintained guest houses at different places on which
it had incurred total expenditure of Rs.3,33,926 consisting of rent
(Rs.1,76,000), depreciation (Rs.66,441) and other expenses (Rs. 91,485). As it
did not claim deduction for these expenses, revised return was filed on
5-10-1989 along with a letter mentioning that out of the above amount of
Rs.3,33,926, the rent and depreciation should be allowed as deduction u/s.30 and
u/s.32 of the Act, relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case
of Chase Bright Ltd. (177 ITR 124). Accordingly, disallowance of the expenses
u/s.37(4) of the Act was restricted to only Rs.91,485 and the relevant order was
passed on 17-11-1989. Subsequently, notice u/s.148 was issued on 20-4-1990 for
reopening of the assessment u/s.147. Though as per the reasons recorded for
reopening, the assessment was reopened on the alleged ground of various
disallowable claims, but except for the above referred two items of
disallowances, neither any claim was disallowed, nor any addition was made on
completion of reassessment. In support of the reassessment, the AO had relied
upon the order of the CIT(A) for the A.Y. 1986-87, which was passed on 7-7-1990,
although the assessment was reopened on 2-4-1990. In the appeal filed against
the reassessment order, the CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings on the
ground that it was a case of mere ‘change of opinion’ on the part of the AO as
no new fact or material was available with the AO The Appellate Tribunal also
upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and it was held that New Provisions of S. 147
are applicable in this case and it was also a case of mere ‘change of opinion’.
2.2 On the above facts, the Revenue made an application for
referring the following questions to the High Courts (para 5) :
“Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in
holding that the proceedings initiated u/s.147 of the said Act were invalid on
the ground that there was a mere ‘change of opinion’ ?”
2.3 The above-referred application was rejected by the
Tribunal and hence, at the instance of the Revenue, a petition was filed
u/s.256(2) before the Delhi High Court for direction to Tribunal for referring
the above-referred question to the High Court.
2.4 Before the High Court, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, referred to the provisions of S. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (the 1922 Act) and the Old Provisions as well as the New Provisions of S. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). He also pointed out that the proviso to S. 147 under the New Provisions is in pari materia with Clause (a) of S. 147 under the Old Provisions. It was, inter alia, further contended that the ‘change of opinion’ is relevant only for the purpose of Clause (b) of S. 147 under the Old Provisions, the initiation of reassessment proceedings is permissible when it is found that the AO has passed the assessment order without any application of mind and the same can be found out from the order of assessment itself. When the order of the assessment does not contain any discussion on a particular issue, then the same may be held to have been rendered without any application of mind. It was further contended that from the reasons recorded by the AO, it is apparent that reliance has been placed upon the tax audit report which would have come within the purview of the expression ‘information’ as contemplated in 147 and hence, the re-assessment cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction. For this purpose, reliance was placed on various judgments of the Courts including the judgments of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel (236 ITR 832) and a Delhi High Court case of Bawa Abhai Singh (253 ITR 83). It was also contended that Circular No. 549, dated 31-10-1989 issued by the CBDT (Circular No. 549) cannot be relied upon for the purpose of construction of New Provisions inasmuch as the Circular cannot override the statutory provisions.
2.5 On the other hand, on behalf of the assessee, it was, inter alia, contended that the expression ‘reason to believe’ contained in S. 147 denotes that the belief must be based on the change of fact or subsequent information or new law. Income escaping assessment must be founded upon or in consequence of any information which must come into the possession of the AO after completion of the original assessment. It was also pointed out that the said Circular No. 549 clearly shows that S. 147 was amended only to allay fear of all concerned that prior thereto an arbitrary power was conferred upon the AO and the CBDT, who has the authority to interpret the law, has issued the said Circular No. 549, which should govern the case. Reliance was also placed on various judgments of the Courts in support of contentions raised.
2.6 After considering the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties, the Court proceeded to consider the issue and for that purpose noted the provisions regarding reassessment under 1922 Act as well as the Old Provision and the New Provision under the Act. The Court also noted the said Circular No. 549. The Court then also referred to the various judgments of the Courts rendered under 1922 Act as well as the Old Provisions and the New Provisions of the Act dealing with the issue, wherein the view was taken that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on a mere ‘change of opinion’. Referring to the New Provisions, the Court noted the following observations (head notes) of the Delhi High Court (234 ITR 170) in the case of Jindal Photo Films Ltd. (page 13):
“The power to reopen an assessment was conferred by the Legislature not with the intention to enable the Income-tax Officer to reopen the final decision made against the Revenue in respect of questions that directly arose for decision in earlier proceedings. If that were not the legal position, it would result in placing an unrestricted power of review in the hands of the assessing authorities depending on their changing moods.”
2.7 After considering the above, the Court stated that although the referring Bench had prima facie agreed with the decision of this Court in the case of Jindal Photo Films Ltd. (supra), but doubt was sought to be raised by the Revenue in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel (supra). Accordingly, the Court considered the said judgment of the Gujarat High Court and noted that in that case it was held that the word ‘assessment’ would mean the ascertainment of the amount of taxable income and the tax payable thereon. In other words, where there is no ascertainment of amount of taxable income and the tax payable thereon, it can never be said that such income was assessed. It was further held that merely because during the assessment proceedings the relevant material was on record, it cannot be inferred that the AO must necessarily have deliberated over it and taken in to account while ascertaining the taxable income or that he had formed an opinion in respect thereof. If looking back, it appears to the AO (albeit, within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year) that particular item even though reflected on the record was not subjected to assessment and was left out while working out the taxable income earlier, that would enable him to initiate the proceedings for reassessment. After referring to this view expressed by the Gujarat High Court in that case, the Court disagreed with the same and stated as under (page 15):
“We are, with respect, unable to subscribe to the aforementioned view. If the contention of the Revenue is accepted the same, in our opinion, would confer an arbitrary power upon the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer who had passed the order of assessment or even his successor officer only on the slightest pre-text or otherwise would be entitled to reopen the proceeding. Assessment proceedings may be furthermore reopened more than once. It is now trite that where two interpretations are possible, that which fulfils the purpose and object of the Act should be preferred.”
2.8 The Court then also considered the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bawa Abhai Singh (supra) on which reliance was placed by the Revenue to contend that reassessment proceedings can be initiated on a mere ‘change of opinion’. The Court then noted that in that case it was held that the Old Provisions and the New Provisions are contextually different. Under the New Provisions, the only condition for initiating the reassessment proceeding is that the AO should have ‘reason to believe’ that income has escaped assessment, which belief can be reached in any manner and is not qualified by any pre-condition of faith and true disclosure of material fact by the assessee as contemplated under the Old Provisions in clause of S. 147. Accordingly, the power to re-open the assessment under the New Provisions is much wider and can be exercised even after the assessee has disclosed fully and truly all material facts. After noting this part of the said judgment, the Court stated that it is evident that this judgment cannot be considered as an authority for the proposition that mere ‘change of opinion’ would also confer jurisdiction upon the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings as was contended on behalf of the Revenue.
2.9 Dealing with the meaning of the expression ‘reason to believe’, the Court noted the following view expressed by the Delhi High Court in the earlier referred judgment of Bawa Abhai Singh (supra), on which reliance was placed on behalf of the Revenue (page 16):
“The crucial expression is ‘reason to believe’. The expression predicates that the Assessing Officer must hold a belief?.?.?.?. by the existence of reasons for holding such a belief. In other words, it contemplates existence of reasons on which the belief is founded and not merely a belief in the existence of reasons inducing the belief. Such a belief may not be based merely on reasons but it must be founded on information. As was observed in Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO, (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC), the expression ‘reason to believe’ is stronger than the expression ‘is satisfied’. The belief entertained by the Assessing Officer should not be irrational and arbitrary. To put it differently, it must be reasonable and must be based on reasons which are material. In S. Narayanappa v. CIT, (1967) 63 ITR 219, it was noted by the Apex Court that the expression ‘reason to believe’ in S. 147 does not mean purely a subjective satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer, the belief must be held in good faith; it cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the Court to examine whether the reasons for the belief have a rational nexus or a relevant bearing to the information of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the Section. To that limited extent, the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating proceedings u/s. 147 can be challenged in a Court of law.”
2.10 To decide the issue, the Court then further stated that it is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statute that the entire statute should be read as a whole and the same has to be considered thereafter chapter by chapter and then section by section and ultimately word by word. It is not in dispute that the AO does not have any jurisdiction to review his own order. His jurisdiction is confined to only rectification of apparent mistakes u/s.154 and the said powers cannot be exercised where the issues are debatable. According to the Court, what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly by taking recourse to provisions relating to reassessment. For this, the Court observed as under (page 15):
“It is a well-settled principle of law that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. If the Income-tax Officer does not possess the power of review, he cannot be permitted to achieve the said object by taking recourse to initiating a proceeding of reassessment or by way of rectification of mistake.
2.11 The Court then considered the contention raised on behalf of the Revenue that the said Circular No. 549 cannot be considered, as the Circular cannot override the statutory provisions. In this context, the Court reiterated the settled position with regard to the binding effect of the Circular issued by the CBDT for which reference was made to the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of UCO Bank (237 ITR 889) and Anjum M. H. Ghasswalla (252 ITR 1). The Court, then, felt that if the AO is permitted to reopen the completed assessment on a mere ‘change of opinion’, then the powers of the AO become arbitrary. In this context, the Court observed as under (page 19):
“Another aspect of the matter also cannot be lost sight of. A statute conferring an arbitrary power may be held to be ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If two interpretations are possible, the interpretation which upholds constitutionality, it is trite, should be favoured.
In the event it is held that by reason of S. 147 if the Income-tax Officer exercises his jurisdiction for initiating a proceeding for reassessment only upon a mere change of opinion, the same may be held to be unconstitutional. We are therefore of the opinion that S. 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceeding upon his mere change of opinion.”
2.12 While taking a view that on a mere ‘change of opinion’ reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated, even if the detailed reasons have not been recorded in the original assessment order for accepting the claim of the assessee, finally, the Court stated as under (pages 19/20):
“We also cannot accept the submission of Mr. Jolly to the effect that only because in the assessment order, detailed reasons have not been recorded an analysis of the materials on the record by itself may justify the Assessing Officer to initiate a proceeding u/s.147 of the Act. The said submission is fallacious. An order of assessment can be passed either in terms of Ss.(1) of S. 143 or Ss.(3) of S. 143. When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of the said Ss.(3) of S. 143, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It is well known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of S. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. If it be held that an order which has been passed purport-edly without application of mind would itself confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen the proceeding without anything further, the same would amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong.”
CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC):
3.1 The above-referred judgment of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court came up for consideration before the Apex Court to decide the issue referred to in para 1.5 above.
For this purpose, the Court noted the Old Provisions as well as the New Provisions of S. 147. The Court then stated that on going through the changes made under the New Provisions, we find that for the purpose of reopening, two conditions were required to be fulfilled under the Old Provisions, but under the New Provisions they are given go by and only one condition has remained, namely, that once the AO has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, that confers the jurisdiction for reopening. Therefore, under the New Provisions, power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give schematic interpretation to the words, ‘reason to believe’, failing which S. 147 would give arbitrary powers to AO to reopen assessment on the basis of a mere ‘change of opinion’. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between the power of review and power of reassessment. The AO has no power to power to review; he has the power to reopen. Having made these observations, the Court then held as under (pages 564/565):
“But reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of ‘change of opinion’ is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of ‘change of opinion’ as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is ‘tangible material’ to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to S. 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove. Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, the Parliament not only deleted the words ‘reason to believe’, but also inserted the word ‘opinion’ in S. 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the companies against omission of the word ‘reason to believe’, the Parliament reintroduced the said expression and deleted the word ‘opinion’ on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer.”
3.2 In support of the aforesaid view, the Court also relied on the said Circular No. 549 and reproduced the following portion therefrom (page 565):
“7.2 Amendment made by the Amending Act, 1989, to reintroduce the expression ‘reason to believe’ in S. 147. — A number of representations were received against the omission of the words ‘reason to believe’ from S. 147 and their substitution by the ‘opinion’ of the Assessing Officer. It was pointed out that the meaning of the expression, ‘reason to believe’ had been explained in a number of Court rulings in the past and was well settled and its omission from S. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989, has again amended S. 147 to reintroduce the expression ‘has reason to believe’ in place of the words ‘for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion’. Other provisions of the new S. 147, however, remain the same.”
Conclusion:
4.1 From the above judgment of the Apex Court, it is now clear that even under the New Provisions, reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on a mere ‘change of opinion’. One of the major reasons for taking such a view also appears to be the fact that if the AO is permitted to reopen the assessment on a mere ‘change of opinion’, S. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen reassessment. Therefore, the concept of ‘change of opinion’ is treated as inbuilt test to check the abuse of power by the AO.
4.2 If the AO is permitted to reopen concluded assessment on a mere ‘change of opinion’, his power may become arbitrary and statute confirring arbitrary power may be held unconstitutional as held by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the above case.
4.3 From the above judgment read with the Full Bench Judgment of the Delhi High Court, it seems that the completed assessment can be reopened only when there is a tangible material available with the AO to form a belief that taxable income has escaped assessment. The belief entertained by the AO should not be irrational and arbitrary. It must be reasonable and must be based on reasons which are material.
4.4 We may also state that if the return of income is processed u/s.143(1) without making any assessment u/s.143(3)/147, then such determination of income does not amount to ‘assessment’ [Ref. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker P. Ltd., 291 ITR 500 – SC]. Therefore, in such cases, it seems that the above-referred judgment of the Apex Court may not be of any use to contest the assessment proceedings initiated u/s.147.
