9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the coordinate bench in case of S. Ranjit Reddy and Others (2013 (6) TMI 424 - ITAT HYDERABAD), we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly quashed the reopening of assessment made by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act by observing that there was absolutely no fresh information provided or collected. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue on this issue - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1330/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 18-7-2014 - SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri K.K. Gupta For the Respondent : Sri Kiran Katta ORDER Per: Asha Vijayaraghavan: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commonly available commodities and there would be only a handful of dealers who supply such items. As such, it is strange and surprising that the assessee could not provide the name of the supplier. As the assessee could not discharge the onus cast on it to prove the authenticity of the transaction, the claim of expenditure of ₹ 22,00,000 towards CT scanner is rejected and is bought to tax. 4. During the appeal proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee argued that notice u/s 148 had been issued on 30.03.2011 after four years and there was no default on the part of the assessee in providing inaccurate particulars or in not providing adequate information. It was further stated that in the assessment year 2005-06, expenditure on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no such stipulation and the Assessing Officer has been given much wider leverage to reopen the cases by only recording his belief. In the current case the proviso has not yet come into play as already discussed supra. The Assessing Officer was very much within his rights to reopen the case. Accordingly, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeal: 1. The reopening of assessment is against the law. The original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) (Scrutiny). There is no fresh material that came to the file of assessing officer, to warrant reopening u/s 147. 2. The replacement cost of 'pictu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was a mere change of opinion and the notice of re-assessment was held not valid and liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision in the case of Viswanath Engineering vs. ACIT (354 ITR 0211) = wherein it was held that having previously examined the nature of expenditure and having accepted it during the original assessment, it was not open to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the question. Any such attempt on the part of the Assessing Officer would be based on only on a change of opinion. It was held that reopening of assessment even within four years would not be permissible. 10. We have heard both the parties. The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Object Connect India P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . If there is a fresh material that that would not preclude the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment for an earlier year on the basis of fresh material which has come to light in the course of assessment for a subsequent assessment year. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of Usha International (supra) and the observations of the coordinate bench in case of S. Ranjit Reddy and Others (supra), we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly quashed the reopening of assessment made by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act by observing that there was absolutely no fresh information provided or collected. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
