Amazon Textiles Private Limited and Mr. Raghunath R. Nair V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ward 1(1)(1)

SCA/19973/2021

AI Insights

Amazon Textiles Private Limited challenged the notice for reopening of its assessment for the Assessment Year 2014-2015, issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent order disposing of its objections. The reassessment was based on the grounds that the company had purchased shares at values which were more than their fair market value, thus allegedly escaping income chargeable to tax. The company argued that this issue was already addressed in the original assessment, where it was found that the shares were acquired at fair market value or higher, and no addition was made under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. The court agreed with the petitioner, noting that the reassessment constituted a change of opinion and was beyond the permissible period for reopening assessments under section 147 read with section 149 of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798245 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M R BHATT
• Assessee Lawyers: HIREN TRIVEDI
• Keywords: Equity Shares; Escaped income; Fair market value; Income tax reassessment; Unquoted Trade Investments
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 143(2); 151; 56(2)(viia)

Judgement Text

"C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19973 of 2021 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA ========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ========================================================== AMAZON TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X WARD 1(1)(1) ========================================================== Appearance: HIREN J TRIVEDI(8808) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR MR BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 26/07/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) Page 1 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 1.Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren Trivedi for the petitioner and learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.R. Bhatt for M.R. Bhatt and Co. for the respondent. 2.Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case which lies in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3.Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 4.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 26.03.2021 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Page 2 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 (For short “the Act”) for reopening of the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 as well as order dated 16.08.2021 disposing the objections raised by the petitioner company. 5.Brief facts of the case are as under : 5.1) The petitioner no.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of job work of mercerizing of fabrics and sells mercerized fabrics. Petitioner no.2 is the Director of the petitioner no.1 company. 5.2) The petitioner no.1 company filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 on 28.11.2014 declaring total loss of Rs. (-)5,36,76,973/-. Page 3 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 5.3) Case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment under section 143(2) of the Act by the respondent. Thereafter notices were issued under section 142(1) of the Act from time to time. 5.4) One such notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 23.11.2016 calling for details of unquoted trade investments of the petitioner and explanation on applicability of the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and other details of the petitioner company. 5.5) Petitioner no.1 company vide detailed reply dated 10.12.2016 submitted entire details as called for by the Assessing Officer. 5.6) The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order dated 23.12.2016 under Page 4 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 section 143(3) of the Act without making any additions under section 56(2)(via) of the Act assessing the income of the petitioner at Rs. 2,61,88,000/- 5.7) Respondent no.1 thereafter issued notice dated 26.3.2021 under section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment. 5.8) The petitioner no.1 company filed return of income on 12.04.2021 and requested for copy of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Such copy of reasons recorded dated 22.03.2021 were supplied to the petitioner by communication dated 12.05.2021.The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act read as under : “Reasons for re-opening of the assessment in the case of Amazon Textiles Private Limited for A.Y. 2014- Page 5 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 15 u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act. 1. Brief details of the assessee: The assessee company Amazon Textiles Pvt. Ltd., engaged in the business of Mercerizing of Fabrics filed its return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28.11.2014 declaring total loss of Rs.5,36,76,973/-. The income was assessed to Rs 2,61,88,000/- u/s 143(3) of the Act on 23.12.2016. 2. Brief details of Information collected/received by the AO: On verification of the case records it has been noticed that the assessee had invested an amount of Rs. 116.60 crore by purchasing equity shares of its wholly owned subsidiary five private limited companies. Out of Rs.116.60 crores of investment by purchase of equity shares it had purchased shares from the following companies at value which was more than its fair market value. Name of the companies in which investment was made Total value of investment Total No. of equity shares @ Rs. 10 each Rate at which the assessee purchased the shares ABEER TEXTILES PVT. LTD 243050000 22210000 10.9432688 ACHAL SPINNING PVT. LTD. 90100000 9010000 10 Page 6 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 ANMOL SPINTEX PVT LTD. 348690000 27900000 12.49784946 ANKLESH TEXTILE PVT LTD 387500000 38750000 10 ANVESHAN TEXTILE LTD 96680000 9830000 9.835198372 TOTAL 1,16,60,20, 000 Further, it was also observed that the assessee has not offered any income under section 56(2)(viia) stating that it had purchased the shares either at par with the fair market value or lower than the fair market value as worked out under rule 11UA 3. Analysis of information collected/received: Scrutiny of records, it is noticed that the assessee had invested an amount of Rs. 116.60 crore by purchasing equity shares of its wholly owned subsidiary five private limited companies. \"Under section 56 (2) (viia) where a firm or a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons, on or after the 1st day of June, 2010, any property, being shares of a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, (i) without consideration, the aggregate fair market value of which exceeds fifty Page 7 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate fair market value of such property: (ii) for a consideration which is less than the aggregate fair market value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the aggregate fair market value of such property as exceeds such consideration: Explanation. \"For the purposes of this clause, \"fair market value\" of a property, being shares of a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to clause (vii). Further under sedan 56 (2) (viib) where a company, not being a company in which the public. are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person a resident, any consideration for issue of spares that exceeds the face value of such aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares: Provided that this clause shall not apply where the consideration for issue of shares is received\" (i) by a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company or a venture capital fund; or (ii, by a company from a class or classes of persons as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf Explanation. \"For the purposes of this clause, Page 8 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 (a) the fair market value of the shares shall be the value (i) as may be determined in accordance with such method as may be prescribed; or (ii) as may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer Cased on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, whichever is higher, Out of Rs.116.60 crores of investment by purchase of equity shares it had purchased shares of Rs.1,16,60,20,000/- from three companies at value which was more than its fair market value. Name of the companies in which investment was made Total value of investment Total No. of equity shares @ Rs. 10 each Rate at which the assessee purchased the shares ABEER TEXTILES PVT. LTD 243050000 22210000 10.9432688 ACHAL SPINNING PVT. LTD. 90100000 9010000 10 ANMOL SPINTEX PVT LTD. 348690000 27900000 12.49784946 ANKLESH TEXTILE PVT LTD 387500000 38750000 10 ANVESHAN TEXTILE LTD 96680000 9830000 9.835198372 Page 9 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 TOTAL 1,16,60,20, 000 Further, it was also observed that the assessee has not offered any income under section 56(2)(vila) stating that it had purchased the shares either at par with the fair market value or lower than the fair market value as worked out under rule 11UA. 4. Enquiries made by the AO as sequel to information collected/ received: The facts enumerated above have been found out on examination on the case records of the assessee and are self explanatory. Therefore, no further enquiry is required in this case. On the basis of the same there are reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 5. Findings of the AO: On the basis of above mentioned facts and after proper investigation from the materials on record, it is substantiated that during the year under consideration, the assessee has purchased the shares either at par with the fair market value or lower than the fair market value as worked out under rule 11UA Therefore, the entire amount of share purchased amounting to Rs 1,16,60,20,000/- is required to be treated as income from other sources. Hence, it is found that income of Rs.1,16,60,20,000/- for the year under consideration has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act. Page 10 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 6. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income: From the foregoing paras, it is very clear that the assessee has purchased the shares either at par with the fair market value or lower than the fair market value as worked out under rule 11UA. Therefore, the entire amount of share purchased amounting to Rs.1,16,60,20,000/- is required to be treated as income from other sources. Failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment, the income of the assessee exceeding Rs. 1 lakh has escaped assessment for the AY 2014-15. I have, therefore, reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and it is a fit case to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. 7. Seventh paragraph will include escapement of income chargeable to tax in relation to any assets (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India: Not Applicable. 8. Applicability of the provisions of section 147/151 to the facts of the case: In this case, return of income was filed for the AY 2014-15 by the assessee and regular assessment u/s 143(3) was made on 23.12.2016. Since, 4 years from the end of the relevant year has expired in this case and the assessee has not truly and correctly disclosed material facts Page 11 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 necessary for the assessment year under consideration. It is pertinent to mention here that reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment for the year under consideration have been recorded above (refer paragraph 5 &6 above). I have carefully considered the assessment records containing submissions made by the assessee in response to various notices issued during the assessment proceedings and have noted that the assessee has not fully and truly disclosed the material facts for the year under consideration. It is evident from the above facts that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening u/s 147 of the act. It is true that the assessee has filed a copy of annual report and audited P&L account and balance sheet alongwith return of income where various information/material were disclosed. However, the requisite full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment has not been made as noted above. It is pertinent to mention here that even though the assessee has produced books of accounts, annual report, audited P&L a/c and balance sheet or other evidences as mentioned above, the requisite material facts as noted above in the reasons for reopening were embedded in such a manner that material evidence could not be discovered by the AO and could have been discovered with due diligence Page 12 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 accordingly attracting provisions of Explanation 1 of section 147 of the act. It is evident from the above discussion that in this case, the issues under consideration were never examined by the AO during the course of regular assessment. This fact is corroborated from the contents of notices issued by the AO u/s 143(2)/142(1) and order sheet entries recorded during the assessment proceedings. It is important to highlight here that material facts relevant for the assessment on the issue(s) under consideration were not filed during the course of assessment proceeding and the same may be embedded in annual report, audited P&L A/c, Balance sheet and books of accounts in such a manner that it would require due diligence by the AO to extract these information. For aforestated reasons, it is not a case of change of opinion by the AO. In this case more than four years have been lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 has been obtained separately from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the act.” 5.9) The petitioner no.1 company raised detailed objections dated 27.05.2021 against the the reasons recorded by the Assessing Page 13 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 Officer. 5.10) The Assessing Officer rejected the objections raised by the petitioner vide order dated 16.08.2021. 5.11) Thereafter assessment proceedings have continued and notices under section 142(1) dated 16.08.2021, 25.11.2021 and 9.12.2021 have been issued and the petitioner has given reply to such notices vide letter dated 17.12.2021. 5.12) Being aggrieved by the impugned notice and order disposing of the objections raised by the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 6.Learned advocate Mr. Hiren Trivedi for the petitioner submitted that the reason for reopening the case of the assessee company is Page 14 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 that the assessee company had invested an amount of Rs.116.60 Crore by purchasing equity shares of its wholly owned subsidiaries i.e. five private limited companies. According to the Assessing Officer, the said shares have been purchased either at par with the fair market value or lower than the fair market value as worked out under Rule 11UA of the Income tax Rules,1962 (for short ‘the Rules’) and accordingly the entire amount on shares purchased amounting to Rs. 116.60 Crore is required to be treated as income from other sources. 6.1) Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi submitted that as per the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act if a company not being the company in which substantial public interest is involved, receives the shares of the company in which substantial Page 15 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 public interest is not involved, for a consideration which is less than the fair market value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, then the aggregate fair market value of the property exceeding such consideration shall be treated as income from other sources. However, it was submitted that in reasons recorded the entire amount of investment in shares amounting to Rs. 116.60 Crore has been alleged to be escaped income from other sources disregarding the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and therefore, reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer is without application of mind and is required to be quashed and set aside. 6.2) Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi submitted that during the course of original assessment proceedings, the assessee had Page 16 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 fully disclosed all the facts relevant during the year under consideration that it had purchased the shares of five companies namely, Abeer Textile Pct. Ltd. Achal Spinning Pvt. Ltd., Anmol Spintex Pvt. Ltd, Ankalesh Textile Pct. Ltd. and Anveshan Textile Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted that during the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had specifically asked about the details of investment in unquoted trade investments such as to whether the shares were acquired at fair market value, applicability of the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, computation of fair market value as per Rule 11UA of the Rules and also as to why the addition as per the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act should not be made. It was submitted that in response to such notice the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply wherein it was specifically stated that the said shares of Page 17 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 the companies have been allotted to the assessee company and not received as mentioned in section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. It was stated that the shares of the three companies have been issued at a price which is more than fair market value and the shares of the remaining two companies have been issued at fair market value determined as prescribed in Rule 11UA of the Rules. It was submitted that after due verification of above submissions made by the assessee, the assessment order was passed without making any addition under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. 6.3) Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi submitted that even if the shares are assumed to be acquired at less than fair market value, then also the differential amount between the fair market value and the consideration is to be treated as income from Page 18 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 other sources, however, in the reasons recorded, the Assessing officer has not undertaken such exercise and entire amount of Rs. 116.60 Crore is treated as escaped income from other sources. 6.4) Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi submitted that reopening of assessment by the Assessing Officer is mere change of opinion inasmuch as in the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer inquired about the said issue and detailed reply had been filed by the petitioner company along with working under Rule 11UA of the Rules and upon being satisfied the Assessing Officer chose not to make any addition under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. It was further submitted that reopening of the assessment was beyond the applicable limit of period of limitation of four years as per section 147 read with section 149 of the Act. Page 19 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 7.On the other hand learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.R. Bhatt for the Revenue submitted that the petition is filed at a pre-mature stage inasmuch as only notice under section 148 read with section 147 of the Act has been issued for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 and in the event, the petitioner is aggrieved by reassessment, alternative efficacious remedy is available by way of an appeal to the CIT(Appeal) and thereafter to the Tribunal as per the provisions of the Act. 7.1) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt submitted that the case of the petitioner company has been reopened on the ground that the petitioner had invested an amount of Rs.116.60 Crore by purchasing equity shares of five private limited companies which are wholly own subsidiaries and the petitioner did not offer any income under section 56(2) Page 20 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 (viia) stating that it had purchased share either at par with the fair market value or higher than fair market value as worked out under Rule 11UA of the Rules. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer formed a rational belief that the valuation carried out by the petitioner under Rule 11UA of the Rules was based on un-audited balance sheet and that income under section 56(2)(viia) was required to be offered by the petitioner and therefore, income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs. 116.60 Crore has escaped assessment due to failure on part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. 8.Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates on both the sides, it appears that the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 is issued only on the ground that the petitioner company had Page 21 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 purchased shares either at par with the fair market value or lower than the fair market value and Rs. 116.60 Crore was required to be treated as income from other sources. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has specifically inquired about the said issue and upon being satisfied with the explanation and details submitted by the petitioner, chose not to make any addition under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. 9. During the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had specifically asked about the details of investment in unquoted trade investments and in response to such notice the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply wherein it was specifically pointed out that the said shares of the companies have been allotted to the assessee company and not received as mentioned in Page 22 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. It was after due verification of above submissions made by the assessee, the assessment order was passed without making any addition under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. 10. The petitioner company also provided the working in consonance with the Rule 11UA of the Rules reflecting the net-worth of each of unquoted shares of the companies which allotted shares to the petitioner company. Thus, all the requisite details were fully and truly disclosed by the petitioner and there is no escapement of income chargeable to tax on account of failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 11. It is therefore, apparent that there is change of opinion by the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year Page 23 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 2014-2015, more particularly, when the issue of applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act is already considered during the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer cannot assume any jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment for the year under consideration more particularly, when the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond a period of four years as held by the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 2010(2) SCC 723 as under: “2. A short question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is, whether the concept of \"change of opinion\" stands obliterated with effect from 1st April, 1989, i.e., after substitution of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987? xxxx 6. On going through the changes, quoted Page 24 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re-opening could be done under above two conditions and fulfillment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back assessment, but in section 147 of the Act [with effect from 1st April, 1989], they are given a go-by and only one condition has remained, viz., that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re- open the assessment. Therefore, post- 1st April, 1989, power to re-open is much wider. 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 per se reason to re- open. 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 re-assess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfillment 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 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is \"tangible material\" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must Page 25 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 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 Officer. We quote hereinbelow the relevant portion of Circular No.549 dated 31st October, 1989, which reads as follows: \"7.2 Amendment made by the Amending Act, 1989, to reintroduce the expression `reason to believe' in Section 147.--A number of representations were received against the omission of the words `reason to believe' from Section 147 and their substitution by the `opinion' of the Assessing Officer. It was pointed out that the meaning of the expression, `reason to believe' had been explained in a number of court rulings in the past and was well settled and its omission from section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989, has again amended section 147 to reintroduce the expression `has reason to believe' in place of the words `for reasons to be recorded Page 26 of 27 C/SCA/19973/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 by him in writing, is of the opinion'. Other provisions of the new section 147, however, remain the same.\" 12. In view of foregoing reasons, considering the facts of the case impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 is not tenable in law and is accordingly quashed and set aside and accordingly the order dated 16.08.2021 disposing the objections raised by the petitioner against the notice for reopening is also quashed and set aside. 13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR Page 27 of 27 "