MAHESHKUMAR M. KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PER SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These three appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 27.02.2026 for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. First we take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No.3930/Mum/2026.

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground relating to order passed by the Ld. A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147. The said action of the Hon'ble CIT(A) is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law. is arbitrary, unjustified and bad-in-law. 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant had filed objections vide letter dated 10/12/2019 & 16/12/2019 against the reasons recorded by the Ld. A.O. However, the Ld. A.O. has erred, by not disposing the objections filed by the appellant before passing the reassessment order and thus, the said action of the Ld. A.O. is against the decision Hon'ble SC in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (SC) which is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has erred by initiating the reassessment proceedings and issuing the notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 without understanding the fact that, scrutiny assessment proceedings were already completed and the Ld. A.O. had already verified the facts in respect of capital gain earned by the appellant. Thus, this is a clear case of Change of Opinion which is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law and against the decision of Hon'ble SC in case of Kelvinator of India (320 ITR 561). 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Ld. A.O. on basis of Information received by his office from Investigation Wing, Mumbai which is nothing but Borrowed Satisfaction, which according to the provision of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not valid for issuing notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act 1961. Thus, the said action of the Ld. A.O. is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law. is arbitrary, unjustified and bad-in-law. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred by upholding the denial of exemption by the Ld. A.O. in respect of Long- Term Capital Gain of Rs. 51,79,363/- claimed by the appellant under section 10(38) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 55,24,200/- made by the Ld. A.O. u/s 68 of I. T. 2 Act, 1961 by treating the sale proceeds of shares of Wagend Infra Venture Ltd (formerly Agrwal Holdings Ltd) as unexplained cash credit.” 3. Learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to pages 79A and 79B of the paper book, which contain the reasons for reopening of the assessment. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment year involved is AY 2012-13 and the assessment was reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year by issuance of notice u/s 148 on 29.03.2019 by recording reasons dated 07.06.2019. Referring to the reasons at page 79B of the paper book, learned counsel submitted that the allegation of the Assessing Officer in the reasons is that the information received from DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai has been reconciled with the return of income filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 and the assessee had neither shown any income under the head "Capital Gains" nor any exempt income from the sale of shares (LTCG from transactions on which Security Transaction Tax was paid). Therefore, the Assessing Officer was of a prima facie view that the assessee had not disclosed true and correct facts of his income.

a). Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 268 ITR 339 (Bom) b). Transchem Limited vs. ACIT - WP no. 1387 of 2010 (Bom) c). Grindwell Norton Ltd vs. CIT - (2004) 267 ITR 673 (Bom) d). German Remedies Ltd vs DCIT - (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom) e). Bhavesh Developers vs. AO & Ors - (2010) 329 ITR 249 (Bom) f). Atomstroy Export Joint Stock Company vs. DDIT - (2012) 210 Taxman 137 (Bom) g). Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT & Ors - (2012) 343 ITR 183 (Bom) h). ICICI Bank Ltd vs. DCIT - (2012) 246 CTR (Bom) 292

5.1 Thus, learned counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions submitted that the reopening of the assessment is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law.

“17. Having heard the parties at length, we are of the opinion that the petitioner can be disposed of on the first contention raised by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has contended that the notice issued under section 148 is without jurisdiction being hit by the proviso to section 147 of the Act as such not within the prescribed period provided under proviso to section 147 of the Act. In the circumstances, it would be necessary to turn to section 147 of the Act, which reads as under: “147. Income escaping assessment.—If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year. no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a retur under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year." 18. Reading of proviso to section 147 makes it clear that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceeding under section 147, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be for the concerned assessment year. However, where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for relevant assessment year, no action can be taken under section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reasons of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all. material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. (Emphasis supplied] 19. In the case in hand it is not in dispute that the assessment year involved is 1996-97. The last date of the said assessment year was 31st March, 1997 and from that date if four years are counted, the period of four years expired on Ist March, 2001. The notice issued is dated 5th November, 2002 and received by the assessee on 7th November, 2002. Under these circumstances, the notice is clearly beyond the period of four years. 20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded. It is for the Assessing Officer to disclose and open his mind through reasons recorded by him. He has to speak through his reasons. It is for the Assessing 11 Officer to reach to the conclusion as to whether there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the concerned assessment year. It is for the Assessing Officer to form his opinion. It is for him to put his opinion on record in black and white. The reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness. The reasons recorded must disclose his mind. Reasons are the manifestation of mind of the Assessing Officer. The reasons recorded should be self-explanatory and should not keep the assessee guessing for the reasons. Reasons provide link between conclusion and evidence. The reasons recorded must be based on evidence. The Assessing Officer, in the event of challenge to the reasons, must be able to justify the same based on material available on record. He must disclose in the reasons as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly necessary for assessment of that assessment year, so as to establish vital link between the reasons and evidence. That vital link is the safeguard against arbitrary reopening of the concluded assessment. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer cannot be supplemented by filing affidavit or making oral submission, otherwise. the reasons which were lacking in the material particulars would get supplemented, by the time the matter reaches to the Court, on the strength of affidavit or oral submissions advanced. 21. Having recorded our finding that the impugned notice itself is beyond the period of four years from the end of the assessment year 1996-97 and does not comply with the requirements of proviso to section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment proceedings which were concluded on the basis of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. On this short count alone the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and set aside” 14. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Transchem Ltd. vs. ACIT, in W.P. No.1387 of 2010 dated 03.02.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as under:-

“This Petition was admitted by an order dated 6" September, 2010. Petitioner is seeking setting aside of notice dated 29" March, 2010 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the said Act) and also the approval granted by Respondent No. 3 under section 151 of the Act. By the order dated 22d June, 2010 passed by Respondent No. 1 rejected Petitioner's objections to the reopening. 2. Admittedly, in this case, a notice to reopen has been issued more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year and assessment under section 143(3) of the Act has also been completed. Therefore, in view of the proviso to section 147 of the Act, Respondent has to show failure on the part of Petitioner to disclose truly and fully material facts required for assessment for the assessment year. The reasons recorded for reopening read as under: "Reasons recorded for reopening the assessment u/s.147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 The return of income was filed by the assessee company on 31.10.2003, declaring total income at Rs. 71,27,071/-after claiming deduction u/s. 80 HHC amounting to Rs. 71,27,071/. The case was scrutinized u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29.11.2005, assessing the total income at Rs. NIL after allowing deduction u/s. 80 HHC of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs. 30,48,339/- and set-off of brought forward losses to the extent of available income of Rs. 1,54,98,742/-. In the assessment order, the Book Profit was determined at Rs. 47,91,480/- u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act after allowing deduction u/s.80 HHC of the Act amounting to Rs. 30,48,339/-. 2. It is now observed that the qualifying amount for deduction u/s.80 HHC ought to have been determined after allowing set-off of brought forward losses against the adjusted profit of the business of Rs. 1,01,05,832/-If the brought forward loss of Rs. 1,54,98,742/- is adjusted against the adjusted profit of business, it would result into a negative figure, thereby disentitling the assessee from allowance of deduction u/s.80 HHC. Further, while computing the Book Profit u/s. 115 JB of the Act, also, the deduction u/s. 80 HHC amounting to Rs. 30,48,339/- has been wrongly allowed in assessment order. Thus, the sum of Rs. 30,48,339/- has escaped assessment as the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. 3. In view of the above facts, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for issue of Notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. At the outset, these reasons do not indicate that there was failure on the part of Petitioner to truly and fully disclose any material fact. The Assessing Officer is relying on the same material facts already filed and considered by the Assessing Officer who passed the original assessment order. Moreover, the entire basis for reopening as could be seen from the reasons is change of opinion and as has been held time and again by various Courts, Respondent cannot propose to reopen assessment on the basis of change of opinion. Moreover, it is quite clear that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order considering materials on record and taken a conclusive view. To reopen the assessment based on same material with a view to take another view, is not permissible. Moreover, in this case, there is simply a general statement in the reasons that assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. In our view, this statement is clearly made only as an attempt to take the case out of the restrictions imposed by proviso to section 147 of the Act. 4. Further according to the reasons recorded, there was an error on the part of Assessing Officer because the qualifying amount for deduction under section 80HHC ought to have been determined after allowing set-off of brought forward losses against the adjusted profit of the business. An error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material does not give power to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment. 5. This Court in the case of CHAT Ltd. VS. Assistant Commissioner of Inoome Tax Cirole B(2) (1) and Ors.' in paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 has held as under: 3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian & Bastern Newspaper Bodety vs. Commissioner of Income-tax has held that an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give power to the Assessing Officer to re-open the assessment. Paragraph no.14 of the said judgment read as under: 14. Now, in the case before us, the Income-tax Officer had, when he made the original assessment, considered the provisions of Sections 9 and 10. Any different view taken by him afterwards on application of those provisions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him. The Revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen the assessment under Section 147 (b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT, (1976) 102 ITR 287, where a Bench of learned Judges of this Court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the "oversight, inadvertence or mistake of the Income-tax Officer must fall within Section 34(1) (b) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels further than the statute warrants insofar as it can be said to lay down that if, on reappraising the material considered by him during the original assessment, the IT0 discovers that he has committed an error in consequence of which income has escaped assessment, it is open to him to reopen the assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on & reconsideration of the same material and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this Court in Maharaj Kamal Kumar Singh's case (supra), A. Raman and Co.'s case (supra) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 831, and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji's case (supra) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law. 4. This view has been followed by a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Dell India (P.) Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU, Bangalore. 6. Petition therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which read as under: (a) "That this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writin the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records of the petitioner's case insofar as they relate to the impugned notice dated 29t March, 2010 being Exhibit H hereto, the impugned alleged approval of Respondent No. 3 under section 151 of the Act, and the impugned order dated 22.06.2010 passed by Respondent No. 1 being Exhibit N hereto and impugned reassessment proceedings of the Petitioner for the assessment year 2003-04 and after going through the same and examining the question of legality thereof, to quash and cancel the same."”

“Ground no. 1: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground relating to order passed by the Ld. A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147. The said action of the Hon'ble CIT(A) is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law. is arbitrary, unjustified and bad-in- law. Ground no. 2: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has erred by initiating the reassessment proceedings on information received by his office. However, the Ld. A.O. had failed to understand that the said issue was already examined during the course of assessment proceedings and reassessment proceedings. Thus, this is a clear case of CHANGE OF OPINION and against the decision of Hon'ble SC in case of Kelvinator of India (320 ITR 561). 15 Ground no. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. had received information that the appellant had traded in scrip of M/s Wagend Infra Venture Ltd for an amount of Rs. 4,04,21,759/- as per the reasons recorded dated 12/04/2021. Further, on submission made by the appellant the Ld. A.O. was satisfied with the contention of the appellant, that the issue was already examined and addition of Rs. 3,50,12,921/- was already made vide order dated 24/12/2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. However, the Ld. A.O. still proposed to proceed in passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act alleging that the difference amount of Rs. 54,08,838/- has escaped assessment without understanding the fact that this is a clear case of Change of Opinion and the Ld. A.O. had solely relied upon the information received by his office which nothing more than borrowed satisfaction. The appellant humbly states that all the above grounds challenge the validity of the re-assessment proceedings and are therefore taken up together for making written submissions thereon. In this regard, it humbly stated that the case of the appellant was initially selected for scrutiny assessment proceedings and thereafter an assessment order was passed accepting the claim of exemption from long term capital gains on sale of shares of Wagend Infra Venture Ltd made u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"]. This fact is also submitted before the Ld. A.O. during the course of original scrutiny assessment proceedings. Copy of said letter is submitted in the paperbook at pg. no. 68 to 70. Thus, after considering the reply filed by the assessee, the Ld. A.O. has passed the Original Assessment order treating the capital gain to be correct (ref. pg. 83 of Paper book). As such, there is no doubt or dispute that the Long Term Capital Gains were scrutinised in the original assessment. Thereafter, the assessment was re-opened u/s 147 / 148 of the Act. As per the reasons for re-opening, the assessment was re-opened to withdraw the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act made on sale of shares of Wagend Infra Venture Ltd. Pursuant to this re-opening of assessment, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 3,50,12,921/- and passed an order vide dated 24/12/2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. This amount is the amount of Capital Gain claimed as exempt by the Assessee. A copy of the first re-assessment order is annexed hereto at pg. 12 to 35. As such, it is undisputed that, the claim for exemption from long term capital gains on sale of shares was scrutinised for the second time and the gain claimed as exempt was taxed in the First re- assessment proceeding. In the humble submission of the Assessee, the said re- assessment is bad in law and void for various reasons. In this regard, an appeal against the said first re-assessment order was file before the learned CIT appeals and thereafter before the Honourable Tribunal. The said is numbered as ITA 3932 / M / 2026 for AY 2013-14.

During the pendency of the appeal before the CIT appeals, the Ld. A.O. again issued a notice under section 148A(b) and thereafter a notice under section 148 along with an order under section 148A(d), again on the reason that the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10(38) in respect of sale of Shares of Wagend Infraventure Ltd. is not allowable. A copy of the notice u/s 148A(b), the order under section 148A(d) and the Notice u/s 148 are annexed hereto at pg. 93B to 94F of Paperbook. Ultimately, an assessment order came to be passed where in the Ld. A.O. made an addition of Rs. 55,24,200/- which is the difference between the sale value of Rs. 4,04,21,759 and the amount brought to tax in the first reassessment proceeding Rs. 3,50,12,921/- [Ref. First reassessment order at pg. no. 35 read with last paragraph of the impugned assessment order at pg. no. 59 & 60 of the of documents enclosed]. In this regard, all the documents are already part of paper book submitted before your Honour, details of which are as follow: Sr. Particulars Paper book Page no. No. page no. along with submission 1. Copy of submission made during the 68 to 70 1 to 3 course of original scrutiny assessment proceedings 2 Copy of Original Scrutiny Assessment 80 to 83 4 to 7 order 3 Copy of reasons recorded during 1st 86A to 86B 8 to 9 Reassessment proceedings 4 Copy of submission made during the 1st 92 to 93 10 to 11 Reassessment proceedings 5 Copy of reassessment order passed — 12 to 35 during 1st Reassessment Proceedings 6 Copy of notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the 93B to 93D 36 to 38 I. T. Act, 1961 7 Copy of reasons recorded during 2nd 93E to 93G 39 to 41 Reassessment proceedings 8 Copy of Order Passed u/s 148A(d) of the 94A to 94C 42 to 44 I. T. Act, 1961 9 Copy of notice issued u/s 148 of the I. T. 94D to 94F 45 to 47 Act, 1961 10 Copy of reassessment order passed Part of 48 to 61 during 2nd Reassessment Proceedings Appeal Memo

It could thus be seen that the impugned reassessment proceeding is nothing but a review of the earlier assessment/reassessment proceedings. In the above facts, the assessee submits that the impugned reassessment proceeding is bad in Law and void for the following reasons among others:

• The impugned reassessment proceeding is on a complete change of opinion and just an attempt to review the fact already on record. The proceeding is a review in the garb of reassessment which is impermissible under the extant Law. The position that a reassessment cannot be initiated on a change of opinion is judicially accepted even under the amended law for reassessment. In this regard, a useful reference can be made to the following judgements: Mira Bhavin Mehta v/s ITO - P 3246 of 2022 in Hon'ble Bombay High Court holding that: ...It is settled law that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. In fact, the AO in the assessment order dated 28th April 2021 has noted that the issue of investment in immovable property and capital gain / income on sale of property was considered under limited scrutiny assessment and in view of the material on record no addition on the issue is made. The information relied upon while issuing notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act also relates to the said flat and entirely contradictory view is taken in the impugned order that the asset sold was short term capital asset and gain arising on transfer of the said flat is short term capital gain. In our view, the reopening of the assessment is purely on the basis of change of opinion of the A0 from that held earlier during the course of assessment proceedings. This change of opinion does not constitute justification for assuming that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. " Also in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 154 taxmann.com 159 (Bombay) Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as follows :- "37. The Assessing Officer does not have any power to review his own assessment when during the original assessment petitioner provided all the relevant information which was considered by him before passing the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 23rd December 2018. Petitioner had debited an amount of Rs. 6,41,87,93 l/- on account of software consumables in the profit and loss account and a detailed breakup of the said expenses were submitted before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings vide a letter dated 6th December2018. It is settled law that proceedings under section 148 cannot be initiated to review the earlier stand adopted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings to have a relook at the documents that were filed and considered by him in the original assessment proceedings as the power to reassess cannot be exercised to review an assessment. In petitioner's case the Assessing Officer having allowed the amount of software consumables as a revenue expenditure now seeks to treat the same as capital expenditure which is a clear change of opinion. Various judicial precedents have held that reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of a mere change of opinion are invalid and without jurisdiction. 38. The Apex Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) emphasised on the difference between a power to review and the power to reassess. The Apex Court held that the Assessing Officer has no power to review but has only the power to reassess. The concept of 'change of opinion' must be treated as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. The relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced as under:- ".....However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be a reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening 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 1-4-1989, Assessing Officerhas 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 section 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove. Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not only deleted the words "reason to believe" but also inserted the word "opinion" in section 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the Companies against omission of the words "reason to believe", Parliament re-introduced the said expression and deleted the word "opinion" on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Office...." 39. The Delhi High Court in Seema Gupta v. ITO (2022] 140 taxmann.com 463/288 Taxman 519 (Delhi) held that the order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 of the Act should be set aside when the reassessment was initiated on a change of opinion where the same was discussed and verified by the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment proceedings. In view of the above, it is submitted that the impugned reassessment proceeding is bad in law and void and deserves to be quashed.

• The Appellant further submits that in order to re-open an assessment post 01.04.2021, the AO must have information suggesting income escaping assessment. The said information must necessarily suggest income that has escaped assessment. However, the very same information cannot once again form the basis of initiating re-assessment. Admittedly, the First reassessment was initiated to withdraw the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act and which was in fact withdrawn Ref. First reassessment order at pg. no. 12 to 35 of Paperbook]. The very same information cannot form basis to make a re-assessment. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Divya Capital One Private Limited /W.P.(C) 7406/2022) has observed that, "... the term 'information' in Explanation 1 to Section 148 cannot be lightly resorted to so as to reopen the assessment and it cannot be a ground to unbridled power to the Revenue. Whether it is "information to suggest" under amended law or "reason to believe" under erstwhile law the benchmark of "escapement of income chargeable to tax" still remains the primary condition to be satisfied before invoking powers under Section 147 of the Act. As such, the present re-assessment is bad in law even on this count of absence of information suggesting income escaping assessment.” 19. We find considerable merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee. The assessment was already reopened earlier for the very same reason and the reassessment was completed on 24.12.2019 u/s 147 of the Act, which was also referred to in the assessment order. For the very same reason, the assessment cannot be reopened merely on a change of opinion and borrower satisfaction. The ratio of the decisions in the case of Mira Bhavin Mehta vs. ITO in W.P. No. 3246 of 2022 and Siemens Financial Services (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2023) 154 taxmann.com 159 (Bom) applies to the facts of the assessee's case. The ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) also applies to the facts of the assessee's case. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we quash the reassessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.05.2022 for AY 2013-14.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29/07/2026

Sd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 29/07/2026 Prabhat Copy to: MAHESHKUMAR M. KOTHARI, 901, FLOOR 9TH, ARIHANT TOWERS, T. B. 1 KADAM MARG, BYCULLA, MUMBAI-400027, MAHARASHTRA

DCIT, CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, PAREL, 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400012, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE