BHAVAL SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ACIT)

PDF · subscribers
CW/27597/2018HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JP:9407-DB04 March 2025Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN, MANEESH SHARMA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the contention of the petitioner that it is a case of change of opinion and that the entire material was before the assessing authority is rejected. The assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was found to be cryptic, lacking discussion on any issue or deductions claimed. The proviso to Section 147 of the Act, as it existed at the relevant time, allows for reassessment after four years if income has escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Tribunal noted that the assessing officer concluded that there was an escapement of assessment due to the petitioner's failure to disclose necessary material. Specifically, the escapement related to Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) on book profits, arising from the petitioner availing a deduction of Rs. 1,64,51,540/- for 'Profit of Sick Industrial Company till net worth is equal to or exceeds accumulated losses' without the necessary sanction from the CBDT for exemption from Section 115JB(2)(ii) of the Act. The contention that the notice was time-barred was considered a mixed question of fact and law, not determinable in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all issues at an appropriate stage.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bhaval Synthetics (India) Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 15, 2018, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated December 11, 2018, rejecting their objections. The assessment year in question is 2011-12. The petitioner had filed a return declaring 'Nil' income and a loss of Rs. 4,10,457/-. The original assessment was finalized under Section 143(3) on February 14, 2014. The reassessment proceedings were initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The petitioner contended that the reassessment was based on a change of opinion and that all material was available to the assessing officer during the original assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 15, 2018, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reassessment for assessment year 2011-12, is barred by limitation, considering the original assessment was finalized under Section 143(3) of the Act. Assessee's Contention: The reassessment proceedings are time-barred as they were initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. It is argued that this is a case of change of opinion, as the entire material was before the assessing authority during the original assessment under Section 143(3). The proceedings were initiated on suspicion based on directions received from authorities. Revenue's Contention: The objections raised were dealt with in accordance with law. The petitioner will have an opportunity to raise grievances before the assessing authority and subsequently in appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 142,Section 139,Section 115JB(2)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:9407-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27597/2018 Bhaval Synthetics (India) Ltd., through Director Shri Jayesh Banger S/o. Shri L.R. Banger, Resident Of A-110, Shastri Nager, Bhilwara (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (ACIT), Circle-2, Room No. 109, Central Revenue Building, Ajmer. 2. The Central Board Of Direct Taxes (CBDT), North Block, Department Of Revenue, New Delhi- 110 001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. with Mr.Devang Gargieya, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Siddharth Bapna, Adv. with Mr.Sarvesh Jain, Adv. Mr.Meyhul Mittal, Adv. & Mr.Rahul Kumar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 04/03/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN,

J ORAL

1.

This writ petition is filed seeking quashing of notice dated 15.03.2018 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) and order dated 11.12.2018 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner. 2. The brief facts are that for assessment year 2011-12 the petitioner filed a return declaring ‘Nil’ income and showing the loss of Rs.4,10,457/-. As per the profit and loss account the net profit was Rs.1,64,51,540/- but while computing the book profit the net profit was reduced. The assessment was finalized on 14.02.2014 under Section 143(3) of the Act. On 15.03.2018 notice under (Uploaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:21:36 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:22:12 AM)

[2025:RJ-JP:9407-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-27597/2018] Section 148 of the Act was issued. The reasons were supplied. The objections filed by petitioner were rejected, hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the proviso to Section 147 of the Act the reassessment in the cases of assessment having been finalized under Section 143 (3) can be done before expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. It is argued that it is a case of change of opinion as the entire material was before the assessing authority while framing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. Contention is that on the basis of directions received from the authorities the proceedings for reassessment were initiated on suspicion. 4. As per contra the objections raised dealt with in accordance with law. Argument is that the petitioner shall have opportunity to raise the grievances before the assessing authority and then in appeal. 5. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that it is a case of change of opinion and the entire material was before the assessment authority, is noted to be rejected. From perusal of the assessment order passed under Section 143 (3) it is evident that the order is cryptic, discusses no issue and even the deductions claimed have not been dealt with. The operational part of the order is that after going through the details and verifying the affairs, the return income is accepted and the credit of prepaid taxes is given. The proviso to Section 147 of the Act as is existed at the relevant time is reproduced below:- (Uploaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:21:36 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:22:12 AM)

[2025:RJ-JP:9407-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-27597/2018] “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 return 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: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment for any assessment year: Provided also that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment.” 6. There is no quarrel with the proposition that as per the proviso the reassessment proceedings in case of assessment having been finalized under Section 143(3) of the Act cannot be initiated after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. But this limitation prescribed is subject to exception in cases where the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment. 7. While dealing with the objections the finding recorded is that the assessing officer had come to the conclusion that on failure to fully and truly disclose the necessary material, there is an escapement of assessment. (Uploaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:21:36 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:22:12 AM)

[2025:RJ-JP:9407-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-27597/2018] 8. The AO on an independent application of mind and after conducting the enquiry had reasons to believe that there was escapement of Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) on books profit. The escapement was a result of non disclosure by the petitioner that concessions relating to income tax as mentioned the scheme sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) on 02.06.2009 was not allowed by competent authority i.e. CBDT. Inspite of the non-sanctioning of grant of exemption to the petitioner from the provisions of Section 115JB(2)(ii) of the Act relating to MAT the petitioner availed deduction of “Profit of Sick Industrial Company till net worth is equal to or exceeds accumulated losses” to the tune of Rs.1,64,51,540/- in the assessment year 2011-12. 9. The contention raised that the notice was time barred is based upon the factual aspect and involves a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be determined at this stage in writ jurisdiction. 10. The writ petition is dismissed. 11. Needless to say the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the issues at an appropriate stage during the proceedings before the authorities. (MANEESH SHARMA), J (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J Himanshu Soni/22 Reportable:- Yes Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:21:36 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:22:12 AM)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →