9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re change of opinion, which is not permissible in law. Tribunal did not commit any error in upholding the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in setting aside the reopening of the assessment. - Tax Appeal No. 875 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2018 - Ms. HARSHA DEVANI AND MR. A. S. SUPEHIA, JJ. For The Appellant : mrs kalpana k. Raval, advocate ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. In this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) the appellant revenue has challenged the order dated 19.04.2017 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad A Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in ITA No.173/Ahd/ 2012 by propos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts available on record which had categorically suggested that income has escaped assessment and the reopening of the case was not merely due to a change of opinion? ( C) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Appellate Tribunal ought to have upheld the reopening proceedings and also upheld the addition of ₹ 74,60,661/-.? 2. The assessment year is 2005-06. In this case, the original assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2007 determining the total income of Rs.(-) 9,67,248/-. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Act and the re-assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act was finalized on 14.12.2010, by making additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals), upon perusal of the record of the case, has found as a matter of fact that during the course of the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had issued notice dated 13.08.2007, in response to which the assessee had submitted replies on 17.08.2007 and 26.11.2007 in relation to this very issue and had explained its stand to the Assessing Officer. In view of the above, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the Assessing Officer having examined the issue, had considered the same and formed an opinion; no additions were made in the original assessment on the account of the transaction; and therefore, the reopening on the same issue would clearly be a change of opinion which is not permissible in law in vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
