The Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings against ICICI Bank.

The bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that there can be no question of any failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts but on the contrary allowing the respondents to pursue the present proceeding would amount to empowering power of review on respondents which the Act does not provide and which is not permissible under the Income Tax Act.

The petitioner/assessee, ICICI Bank has challenged the reassessment proceedings.

The assessee contended that the notice was issued after a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and in the absence of any allegation of any failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, impugned notice is barred by the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 

The assessee contended  that the issue for which the re-opening is sought was raised in the course of the assessment proceedings and a reply was filed by the petitioner and the same was considered in the assessment order. Therefore, based on this ground also the reassessment proceedings would amount to change of opinion.

The department contended that the petitioner has mis-represented insofar as the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) is concerned. Therefore, there is a failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts and therefore the proceedings are valid and the same is not hit by the first provision of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

The court noted that the notice under Section 148 is issued after the expiry of a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment order. As per the first proviso of Section 147 of the Act, re-assessment proceedings cannot be initiated after a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.

The court held that the information on the basis of which re-opening is sought was based on the documents filed by the petitioner along with the return of income and in the assessment proceeding.

Case Details

Case Title: ICICI Bank Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case No.: Writ Petition No.1172 Of 2022

Date: 11 February 2025

Counsel For Petitioner: Aarti Vissanji

Counsel For Respondent: Abhishek Mishra

Read More: Centre Invites Comments On The Draft Of Advocates (Amendment) Bill 2025