JM Financial Asset Management Ltd. v. DCIT

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: See packaged judgment

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Reassessment after four years of mutual fund asset manager: review on same material and change of opinion.
• What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
• How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?

Material facts and procedural background

JM Financial Asset Management Limited. B, 8th Floor Cnergy, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. PAN: AAACJ2578F ...... Appellant

Appellant by : Dr. K. Shivaram Respondent by : Sh. Vranda U Matkari, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 21/12/2022 Date of pronouncement : 24/01/2023

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [for short ‘CIT (A)’] dated 09.05.2022 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CIT(A)') erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer ('AO') in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act ("the Act') without appreciating the fact that the same had been done in utter disregard of the express provisions of the Act on fresh application of mind on the same set of facts, more so when there was no failure on the part of the appellant to disclose truly and fully all the facts necessary for completion of the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act.

5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the Grounds stated here-in-above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”

Appellant / assessee submissions

The packaged judgment does not separately label the appellant's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

4. We have gone through the order of AO, order of Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee along with the paper-book. In addition to this we have considered the details filed by the assessee during original assessment proceedings. In compliance to notice u/s 142(1) r.w.s 143(2) vide page no. 36 to 41 of the paper-book dated 20-10-2022. The reopening of the case was being done on the same issues which were submitted, disclosed and the same is considered to be change of opinion. For sake of reference extract of relevant submission during the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration at page no. 40 of the Paper Book is reproduced here-in-below:

8. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a plethora of judgements, it is not for the assessee to tell as to how the Assessing Officer has to complete the assessment. The duty of the assessee is to make a full and true disclosure of all materials. If the assessee is put on notice calling for additional materials, the assessee is duty bound to fully and truly disclose all materials and thereafter, it is for the Assessing Officer to take a call on the materials. We are satisfied that whatever be the concern, it was to be traced in the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, the details in the understanding of the Assessing Officer were called for and the details were placed by the assessee and thereafter, the assessment has been completed. Therefore, we find that the reopening was wholly without jurisdiction. As pointed out earlier, the Assessing Officer, while disposing of the objections, has not touched upon the issue relating to jurisdiction.

Operative decision and relief

11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Ratio and legal principle

• The packaged judgment addresses Reassessment after four years of mutual fund asset manager: review on same material and change of opinion. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
• Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with reassessment after four years of mutual fund asset manager: review on same material and change of opinion. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.

Practitioner action points

• Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
• Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
• Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.

Does this case match your facts?

Section / provision impact

• See the statutory provisions identified in the packaged judgment.

Case network

Similar issue / useful comparison

• NITIN NEMA VS ITO WARD 1(1) JABALPUR & ORS - Madhya Pradesh High Court - Jabalpur
• Uttrakhand Poorv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. ITO - ITAT Dehradun Circuit Bench
• Jindal Exports and Imports Private Limited vs. DCIT - Delhi High Court

Different outcome / possible distinction

• ITO CIR 6(1)-4 VS ASAHI INFRA & PROJECTS LIMITED - Quashed / set aside
• Amrita Jhaveri (Ms.) v. Dy. CIT - Quashed / set aside

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: Sanitized local full-judgment copy; official primary replacement pending · Repository status: Later-history status: verification on hold pending source confirmation