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

WA/330/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by the Revenue against a decision favoring LSI India Research and Development Pvt. Ltd., which quashed a notice and order for re-opening the assessment under the Income Tax Act. The Revenue challenged the Single Judge's decision, arguing that the re-opening was justified. However, the High Court found that the re-opening was based on mere change of opinion, which is not a sufficient ground under the established legal precedents. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge's ruling.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 736124 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961, Karnataka High Court Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DILIP; RAVI RAJ
• Keywords: Change of opinion; Income Tax; Re-opening of assessment; Writ Appeal
• Section: 147; 148; 4

Judgement Text

" - 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 "