New Delhi: Drawing a clear distinction between grounds for initiating an income tax-related inquiry and the grounds for finalising tax liability, the Supreme Court has said that an assessment officer (AO) can carry out a re-assessment of taxable income if they have a ‘logical reason to believe’ that a re-assessment is warranted.
In a judgment delivered on 28 October, the top court held that the tax official can send a re-assessment notice to the assessees if there is new “tangible” evidence that justifies the re-assessment. The AO does not need absolute proof at this preliminary stage, but the evidence must directly connect to the untaxed income, the court said.
Further, it ruled that taxpayers cannot argue that re-assessment is an invalid “change of opinion” if the tax official’s original order was vague, brief, or completely failed to investigate the specific issue.
The court drew a clear distinction between the grounds for initiating a tax inquiry (having a valid reason) and the grounds for finalising tax liability (having sufficient proof).
The order by a two-judge bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Vinod K. Chandran came on appeal filed by brothers Chetan and Nitin Sabharwal, who had challenged a Delhi High Court judgment from 6 August, 2019. While dismissing the appeal, the court upheld the High Court’s decision to allow reassessment.
The High Court had allowed the Income Tax Department’s move to re-assess the brothers’ assessments after several years, even though the share-sale transactions by the assesses had previously been disclosed and examined. The bench of Justices S. Muralidhar and Talwant Singh had dismissed four writ petitions filed by the brothers challenging reassessment notices for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10.
The core dispute before the Supreme Court was regarding the interpretation of Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.
Under Sections 147 and 148, the assessees must be judged strictly on the reasons recorded at the time of issuance—without adding new grounds later.
Section 147 empowers the assessment officer (AO) to assess or reassess income if the officer has a legally valid basis to believe that taxable income escaped assessment for a particular assessment year. Under this Section, reopening an assessment after four years from the relevant assessment year requires proof that income escaped because the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts.
Section 148 provides the procedure for issuing a notice to an assessee when the department proposes to reassess income under Section 147. The notice requires the taxpayer to furnish a return of income for the relevant assessment year.
Section 147, 148 of I-T Act
Brothers Chetan and Nitin Sabharwal, on 19 October, 2007, executed Share Purchase Agreements (SPAs) with GYS Real Estate Pvt Ltd. They transferred their shares in Pawan Impex Pvt Ltd and SVIIT Software Pvt Ltd for Rs 195 crore and Rs 60 crore, respectively, over the assessment years (AY) 2008-09 and 2009-10.
During the original scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, the Assessing Officer (AO) verified the transactions and accepted the explanations of the assessees, completing the AY 2008-09 assessment with zero additions on 22 December, 2010.
The matter escalated when the Income Tax Department’s investigation unit in Noida launched an inquiry into the sale of shares in the two companies. The proceeds were subsequently used, in large part, to purchase a high-value property in New Delhi, for which the brothers claimed a capital gains tax exemption. The investigation unit concluded prima-facie that the shares were significantly overvalued compared to the underlying land and building assets.
It also questioned the source of funds for the brothers’ Delhi property acquisition and their claimed capital gains deductions under Section 54F.
Tax exemptions apply when profits from selling non-residential assets are reinvested into a house in India.
Acting on the report, the Income Tax Department issued notices to the brothers under Section 148 on 31 March, 2015, to reopen both assessments. The assessees challenged the notices, claiming they had fully disclosed all material facts and that the move was a mere “change of opinion”. The High Court dismissed their writ petitions, prompting them to move the Supreme Court.
The central issue was not simply the purchase of properties by the brothers. It was whether the share-sale transactions were properly valued and taxed, and whether the capital gains and residential-property deductions had been correctly reported.
The property purchase formed part of the factual background that prompted the investigation.
The brothers’ legal team argued before the Supreme Court that the Income Tax department did not have legally valid grounds to revisit prior assessments. They contended that the reassessment notices issued on 31 March, 2015, were based on an incorrect interpretation of the share transactions and amounted to an impermissible attempt to reassess income that had already been examined.
‘Change of opinion’ of AO
The Supreme Court ruled that an assessment may be reopened if specific, relevant information comes to light after the original assessment, providing a rational basis to believe taxable income escaped assessment. Here, the Investigation Unit’s report was prepared post-assessment, questioning the share valuation.
Further, the top court reaffirmed that the Income Tax Department could reassess income but cannot unconditionally review earlier decisions due to a subsequent, differing conclusion; a mere ‘change of opinion’ is invalid.
The court drew a distinction between an IT review and re-assessment. It also held that the case before it was not a review but a reassessment.
The reassessment, it ruled, was based on the ‘change of opinion’ of the AO on account of fresh information identified by the Noida unit, and that this fresh information led to the re-assessment.
The assessees argued that the Income Tax Department did not establish a valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. They also argued that the department had reopened the assessments after four years without establishing a failure to disclose material facts, and that it had already examined the share-sale transactions had already been examined by the Income Tax Department.
They also submitted that the capital gains belonged to the assessment year 2009-10, not 2008-09. So, they argued that the Income Tax Department could not introduce new grounds after issuing notices and since their transactions were already fully examined, the share valuation did not prove they escaped tax.
However, the Supreme Court rejected this, ruling that the post-assessment investigation report provided tangible new material with a rational, direct link to the assessing officer’s belief that income had escaped assessment.
Giridhar Velamore is an alum of ThePrint School of Journalism, currently interning with ThePrint.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: Faceless assessment ‘scam’: How nexus of I-T officers & CAs rigged the system to net big fish