LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/m-s-mangalam-publications-kottayam-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-kottayam-20240123/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

M/s Mangalam Publications, Kottayam vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
23 January 2024
Case No.
Civil Appeal Nos. 8580-8582 of 2011
Result
Allowed
Bench
B.V. Nagarathna, Ujjal Bhuyan
Citation
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 642 : 2024 INSC 53
Acts & Sections
Income Tax Act, 1961 Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 1 S.C.R. 642 : 2024 INSC 53
Issue for consideration
Reopening of a concluded assessment-reassessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 following issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, legally sustainable or bad in law.
Headnote

Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss. 147 and 148 – Reopening of a concluded assessment-reassessment u/s. 147 following issuance of notice u/s. 148 – Sustainability:

Held: On the basis of the balance sheet submitted by the assessee before the Bank for obtaining credit, the assessing officer upon a comparison of the same with a subsequent balance sheet filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94 concluded that there was escapement of income and initiated reassessment proceedings – Dehors such balance sheet, there were no other material in the possession of the assessing officer to hold that income of the assessee for the assessment years had escaped assessment – When the assessee had not made any false declaration, it was nothing but a subsequent subjective analysis of the assessing officer that income of the assessee for the assessment years was much higher than what was assessed and thus, had escaped assessment – This was a mere change of opinion which cannot be a ground for reopening of assessment – Returns for the assessment years were not accompanied by the regular books of account – Such return may be a defective one but certainly not invalid return – Furthermore, in none of the assessment years, the assessing officer had issued any declaration that the returns were defective – Assessee asserted both in the pleadings and in the oral hearing that though it could not file regular books of account along with the returns for the assessment years because of seizure by the department, nonetheless the returns of income were accompanied by tentative profit and loss account and other details of income which were duly enquired into by the assessing officer in the assessment proceedings – Thus, the tribunal justified in holding that the reassessments for the assessment years not justified – High Court erred in reversing the findings of the tribunal – Order of the High Court set aside and that of the tribunal restored. [Paras 41-45]

Income Tax Act, 1961 – s. 147 – Income escaping assessment – ‘Full and true disclosure’ – Meaning of:

Read the full headnote (5 more paragraphs)

Held: Word ‘disclosure’ means to disclose, reveal, unravel or bring to notice –Word ‘true’ qualifies a fact or averment as correct, exact, actual, genuine or honest – Word ‘full’ means complete – True disclosure of concealed income must relate to the assessee concerned – Full disclosure, in the context of financial documents, means that all material or significant information should be disclosed – Thus, the meaning of ‘full and true disclosure’ is the voluntary filing of a return of income that the assessee earnestly believes to be true – Production of books of accounts or other material evidence that could ordinarily be discovered by the assessing officer does not amount to a true and full disclosure. [Para 31] Income Tax Act, 1961 – s. 147 – Income escaping assessment – Expression “change of opinion” in terms of assessment proceedings:

Held: Expression “change of opinion” would imply formulation of opinion and then a change thereof – In terms of assessment proceedings, it means formulation of belief by the assessing officer resulting from what he thinks on a particular question – Thus, before interfering with the proposed reopening of the assessment on the ground that the same is based only on a change of opinion, the court ought to verify whether the assessment earlier made has either expressly or by necessary implication expressed an opinion on a matter which is the basis of the alleged escapement of income that was taxable – If the assessment order is non-speaking, cryptic or perfunctory in nature, it may be difficult to attribute to the assessing officer any opinion on the questions that are raised in the proposed reassessment proceedings. [Para 36]

Income Tax Act, 1961 – s. 139 – Return of income – Obligation on assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment:

Held: s.139 places an obligation upon every person to furnish voluntarily a return of his total income if such income during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax – Assessee is under further obligation to disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year fully and truly – While the duty of the assessee is to disclose fully and truly all primary and relevant facts necessary for assessment, it does not extend beyond this – Once the primary facts are disclosed by the assessee, the burden shifts onto the assessing officer. [Para 41]

s. 139 – Return of income – When to be treated as invalid return: Held: U/s. 139(9), where the assessing officer considers that the return of income furnished by the assessee is defective, he may intimate the defect to the assessee and give him an opportunity to rectify the defect within fifteen days from the date of such intimation or within such further period, the assessing officer may in his discretion allow – Burden is on the assessing officer – If he does not exercise the discretion, the return of income cannot be construed as a defective return – If the defect is not rectified within the specified period or within the further period as may be allowed, the return shall be treated as an invalid return – In such an eventuality, it would be construed that the assessee had failed to furnish the return. [Para 24.1-24.2]

Keywords: Income Tax Jurisprudence · Concluded assessment · Reassessment · Search and seizure operations · Disclosed income · Limitation period · Reopening the assessment · Omission · Reason to believe · Time limit · Full and true disclosure · Production of books of accounts · Change of opinion

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Ujjal Bhuyan, J. The perennial question in income tax jurisprudence, whether reopening of a concluded assessment i.e. reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly “the Act” hereinafter) following issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is legally sustainable or is bad in law, is again confronting us in the present batch of appeals. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin (‘Tribunal’ hereinafter) had decided in favour of the assessee by setting aside the orders of reassessment. However, the High Court of Kerala in appeals filed by the re
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →