ADDL COMMISSIONER FOR INCOME TAX vs. LSI INDIA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
WA/330/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01014742202310 February 2025Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,G BASAVARAJA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that a mere change of opinion on the very same substratum of facts is not a valid ground for issuing a notice to re-open an assessment. This principle has been long settled by numerous judicial pronouncements. The Court also observed that the items in respect of which the re-opening was sought had already been individually and correctly treated by the assessing authority. The learned Single Judge's order was animated by this reasoning, and therefore, it could not be faulted. Consequently, the intra-court appeal filed by the Revenue was found to be unmeritorious and was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed an intra-court appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dated March 14, 2022. The Single Judge had allowed the assessee's Writ Petition No. 51208 of 2019. The relief granted by the Single Judge was to quash a notice dated March 28, 2019, issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated August 23, 2019, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-1. The assessee is LSI India Research and Development Pvt. Ltd., the successor-in-interest to Renesas Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. The specific assessment years are not explicitly stated in this portion of the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in quashing the notice issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge was justified. The core of the assessee's argument, as reflected in the High Court's reasoning, was that the reopening of assessment was based on a mere change of opinion by the assessing authority regarding issues that had already been considered and dealt with individually and correctly in the original assessment. Revenue's Contention: The appellant-revenue, through its learned Senior Panel Counsel, made vehement submissions for faulting the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The specific grounds or legal provisions relied upon by the revenue are not detailed in this excerpt, beyond the general assertion that the Single Judge's order was incorrect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5765-DB WA No. 330 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT APPEAL NO. 330 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

1.

ADDL. COMMISSIONER FOR INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-1, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095.

2.

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1) BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095.

3.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, 5TH FLOOR,BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DILIP M, ADVOCATE AND SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

LSI INDIA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., (SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO RENESAS MOBILE INDIA PVT. LTD) S1, WIPRO ELECTRONIC CITY, SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, ELECTRONIC CITY,BENGALURU - 560 100. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MS. REKHA JOSHI. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5765-DB WA No. 330 of 2023

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.51208/2019 DATED 14/03/2022.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

The Revenue is in this intra-court appeal for calling in question a learned Single Judge's order dated 14.03.2022 whereby Assessee's Writ Petition No.51208 of 2019 (T-IT) having been favored, relief has been granted to it. Relief portion of the order reads as under:

"The writ petition is allowed, and the impugned notice dated 28.03.2019 (Annexure-E) issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the order dated 23.08.2019 (Annexure-M) by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-( (the first respondent) are quashed".

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5765-DB WA No. 330 of 2023

2.

The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the appellant-revenue makes vehement submission for faltering the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee, per contra, makes equally persuasive submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which, it has been constructed.

3.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are of the considered opinion that mere change of opinion in the very same substratum is not a ground for issuance of notice of the kind for re-opening of the assessment for the subject years. This position has long been settled by a catena of decisions. We also notice that the items in respect of which re-opening is sought to be done have already been treated by the assessing authority individually and rightly. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is animated by such a reasoning and therefore, cannot be found fault with.

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5765-DB WA No. 330 of 2023

In the above circumstances, appeal being unmeritorious is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed, cost having been reluctantly made easy.

Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →