9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailable with the Assessing Officer for coming to a conclusion that reconciliation given by the assessee was wrong or incorrect. Based on the very same set of records, AO had formed a different opinion for initiating a reassessment. Change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening as held by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002 (4) TMI 37 - DELHI High Court] which was affirmed later by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT VS. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Especially so, where four years had elapsed from the end of the assessment year. There is no case for the Revenue that the assessee had failed to furnish full and true information as requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents effected by them to the assessee, whereas assessee had shown only Rs. 32,67,755/- as income from the said bank. Though the assessee objected to the reopening, the Assessing Officer brushed aside such objections and proceeded with the reassessment. The reassessment was completed on 26.12.2008 by making an addition of the difference amount of Rs. 1,04,79,580/-. 3. Assessee moved in appeal assailing the order of the Assessing Officer. As per the assessee, during the course of original proceedings before the Assessing Officer, queries were raised by the Assessing Officer requiring the assessee to reconcile the difference between what was shown in the TDS certificate and what was shown as income by it. Further, as per the assessee, a repl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls of payments it received from M/s. Deutsche Bank. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Dalmia P.Ltd. Vs. CIT in W.P. (Civil) No.6205 of 2010 dated 26.9.2011. 6. Per contra, the counsel for the assessee supported the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 7. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. It is an admitted position that reassessment was initiated on account of difference in the amounts mentioned in the TDS certificates submitted by M/s. Deutsche Bank and what was accounted by the assessee as income received from M/s. Deutsche Bank. In the original assessment completed on 29.03.2004, we find that the Assessing Officer has dwelled on this issue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the difference stood reconciled. There is no new tangible material available with the Assessing Officer for coming to a conclusion that reconciliation given by the assessee was wrong or incorrect. Based on the very same set of .records, he had formed a different opinion for initiating a reassessment. Change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening as held by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 01) = (2003-TII-19-HC-DEL-INTL-LB) which was affirmed later by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT VS. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561). Especially so, where four years had elapsed from the end of the assessment year. There is no case for the Revenue that the assessee had faile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
