MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the impugned notice dated March 30, 2021, and the impugned order dated December 29, 2021, for AY 2017-18, were vitiated by a change of opinion. The Court observed that a specific query regarding the sales turnover discrepancy was raised by the AO, and the petitioner had provided a reconciliation statement before the assessment order was passed under Section 143(3). This, coupled with the fact that similar reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were dropped after the petitioner provided explanations, led the Court to conclude that the AO was merely changing his opinion. Consequently, the notice and order were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the AO to take further steps as per law, considering that reassessment proceedings for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were dropped on the same issue. The AO was to decide on recommencing proceedings within four weeks, providing the petitioner an opportunity to file fresh objections and be heard.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Modi Industries Limited, challenged a notice dated March 30, 2021, and an order dated December 29, 2021, initiating reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The core of the dispute was a purported discrepancy in sales turnover between the Income Tax Return (ITR) and the Tax Audit Report (Form 3CD). The petitioner argued that this constituted a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer (AO) and therefore, reassessment under Section 147/148 was impermissible. The High Court had initially issued notice and stayed the reassessment proceedings. Despite opportunities, the revenue failed to file a counter-affidavit. The Court noted that similar issues for AY 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 had been dealt with previously.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice dated 30.03.2021 and order dated 29.12.2021 for AY 2017-18 are vitiated by a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, thereby rendering them invalid under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the AO's action constituted a change of opinion because a specific query regarding the sales turnover discrepancy was raised and addressed by the assessee before the assessment order was passed. Therefore, the AO could not initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the assessee's arguments. The revenue failed to file a counter-affidavit despite multiple opportunities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %
Date of decision: 27.03.2023 + W.P.(C) 1948/2022
MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Rohit Jain & Mr Saksham
Singhal, Advs.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh, Jr.
Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
The record shows that the first substantive hearing in the matter was held on 04.02.2022. On that day, after hearing counsel for the parties, we had noted the broad contours of the case and issued notice. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the order dated 04.02.2022 is set forth hereafter: “4. At the heart of the matter, according to Mr Jain, is the purported dissonance in the sales turnover, as indicated in the ITR and the Tax Audit Report [i.e., Form 3CD]; an aspect which has led to the initiation of steps for petitioner’s reassessment. 4.1. Mr Jain says that since the reconciliation statement was provided pursuant to a query being raised, and before the assessment order was passed, there was no occasion to issue the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021. 4.2. It is Mr Jain’s contention that since the impugned action constitutes a change of opinion, the AO cannot take recourse to the provisions of Section 147/148 of the Act for reassessing the petitioner. Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:13.04.2023 11:59:38 Signature Not Verified
Prima facie, we are of the view that this is a case of change of opinion, inasmuch as a specific query was raised by the AO concerning purported discrepancy in the sales turnover as disclosed in the Tax Audit Report and the petitioner’s ITR; whereupon an assessment order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 6. Accordingly, issue notice. 6.1. Mr Abhishek Maratha accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue. 6.2. A counter-affidavit will be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, will be filed before the next date of hearing. 7. List the matter on 07.09.2022. 8. In the meanwhile, there shall be a stay on the reassessment proceedings initiated, vide the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021.” 2. As would be evident, we had granted four weeks to respondent/revenue to file a counter-affidavit in the matter. 2.1 On the next returnable date i.e., 07.09.2022, once again further four weeks were granted to respondent/revenue to file counter-affidavit. On that date, interim order dated 04.02.2022 was made absolute during the pendency of the writ petition and accordingly, interlocutory applications were disposed of. 3. It is in this backdrop that the matter has been listed before the court today i.e., 27.03.2023. To be noted, there is a typographical error in the order dated 07.09.2022, as it indicates that the returnable date is 25.03.2022 instead of 27.03.2023. 4. The record shows that the counter-affidavit despite opportunities being given in that behalf. 5. According to us, this appears to be a case of change in opinion. Furthermore, the issue which arises for consideration in the instant Assessment Year (AY) in issue i.e., AY 2017-18, also arose for consideration in AY 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. 6. Insofar as writ action for AY 2014-15 is concerned, i.e., Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:13.04.2023 11:59:38 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C)1922/2022, the same has been disposed of by us today. The notice and order impugned in the said writ petition has been set aside with liberty to the Assessing Officer (AO) to take next steps in the matter, albeit as per law. 7. As is noted therein, for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, the reassessment proceedings were sought to be triggered, which after receiving an explanation from the petitioner, were dropped via two separate orders dated 15.03.2022. 7.1 Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021 and the impugned order dated 29.12.2021 deserve to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly. 8. As in the other case i.e., W.P.(C)1922/2022, liberty is given to the AO to take next steps in the matter. In case reassessment proceedings are sought to be triggered once again, the AO will have regard to the fact that qua the very same issue which is raised in the AY in issue, reassessment proceedings were dropped vis-a-vis AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17. 9. The decision with regard to recommencement of the assessment/reassessment proceedings will be taken by the AO within four weeks from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. In such an eventuality, the petitioner will be given liberty to file fresh objections and a hearing in the matter. Till such time, the interim order passed in the writ petition will continue to obtain. 10. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Registry will scan
Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:13.04.2023 11:59:38 Signature Not Verified and upload the orders dated 15.03.2022 passed qua AYs 2015-16 and 2016- 17 so that it remains embedded in the case file.
(RAJIV SHAKDHER) JUDGE
(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE
MARCH 27, 2023 / r
Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:13.04.2023 11:59:38 Signature Not Verified
More judgments on Section 147
- Bha Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New DelhiITA 5208/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2026AY 2015-16
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Distributory Committee vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner 1Andhra Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- Smt. T.Leela vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- Divikolu Subba Rao vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Delhi Tools vs. The Commissioner CGST & Anr.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Priyanshi Enterprises vs. Principal Commissioner Of CGST Delhi North And Ors.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026