9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y provision of the Act tantamounts to change of opinion ? (2) Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, it is not true that a change of opinion is possible only where two views are possible on an issue and, therefore, in respect of a deduction claim, terminal depreciation in the present case, which does not even find mention anywhere in the Act as a deduction, there is no possibility of two views and, consequently, no question of change of opinion getting imbibed upon the reasons recorded for reopening ? (3) Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessment made under section 147 is bad in law ?" 2. In the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer had change of opinion without any tangible material. 4. We have heard Mr. Suresh Kumar on behalf of the Revenue and Mr. Shah on behalf of the assessee. They have taken us through the proceedings before the Tribunal and the authorities below. 5. The term "depreciation", as ordinarily understood in the context of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been considered by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I. C. D. S. Ltd. v. CIT reported in AIR 2013 SC 3037, the hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with the interpretation of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "Depreciation is the monetary equivalent of the wear and tear suffered by a capital asset that is set aside to facilitate its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC), which held that the concept of change of opinion should be used as a test to check any abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. In our view, the test is correctly applied in the present case and there was no occasion for the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment without any tangible material which formed a live link to the formation of reason to believe escapement of income. There is nothing to show that he had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. Mere description of the depreciation claimed as "terminal depreciation" could not have justified the conclusion reached by the Assessing Officer. In our view, therefore, no substantial question of law arises in the present case. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
