9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 328 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - change of opinion - Held that - The action of the AO is a change of opinion case because the original assessment has been framed in the case of the assessee u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, after making detailed enquiry and the AO has accepted the version of the assessee. Therefore, assessee had made full and true disclosure during the original assessment proceedings. Reopening had been done merely on change of opinion in as much as that in the original assessment made u/s. 143(3). AO has no fresh material to form his opinion regarding escapement of assessment and he has also not found any tangible material to record the reasons for reopening of the assessment of the assessee. It is a settled law that merely change of opinion is not permissible under the law. This view is supported by the Hon ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Usha International Ltd. 2012 (9) TMI 767 - DELHI HIGH COURT and the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited 2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Reopening of the case under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Addition made by the Assessing Authority on account of repairs and maintenance expenses. 3. Validity of the reassessment proceedings and the decision of the Ld. CIT(A). Issue 1: Reopening of the case under section 147/148: The Assessee challenged the reopening of the case, arguing that the points raised had already been considered in the original assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessee contended that the reopening lacked fresh material and was solely based on a change of opinion, citing relevant case laws. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not have new material showing income had escaped assessment, rendering the reopening unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening lacked a valid basis and were without any explanation of escaped income. The Tribunal referenced various case laws to support its decision, highlighting that the reassessment was invalid due to the absence of fresh tangible material. Issue 2: Addition made on repairs and maintenance expenses: The Assessing Authority had made an addition of ?7,80,475 on account of repairs and maintenance expenses, which the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed. However, the Tribunal noted that the original assessment had already disallowed ?3,00,000 out of the total expenses of ?7,80,475. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not have a valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, and the reassessment was based on a change of opinion. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, rendering the addition made invalid. Issue 3: Validity of reassessment proceedings and Ld. CIT(A) decision: The Assessee appealed before the Tribunal against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order dismissing their appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented by both parties and the legal precedents cited, concluded that the reassessment was a case of change of opinion without fresh material. The Tribunal held that the authorities below had erred in upholding the validity of the reopening. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the orders of the authorities below on this legal issue and decided in favor of the Assessee. As the reassessment proceedings were quashed, there was no need to adjudicate the issues on merits, and the Assessee's appeal was allowed. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee, quashing the reassessment proceedings and allowing the appeal. The decision was based on the lack of fresh material for reopening the case and the absence of a valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, rendering the reassessment invalid and based on a change of opinion.
|
