TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ec. 143(3), therefore the AO has already firmed opinion that the deduction claimed by the assessee is allowable deduction and accordingly allowed. Subsequently, on the basis of very same revised return and on the very same claim the Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the expenses claimed by the assessee relates to the earlier year i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 and not relating to the assessment year under consideration, in our opinion is merely a change of opinion and is not permissible in the case of M/s.Kelvinator of India Ltd. [ 2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] . We, are of the opinion that reopening of assessment is not valid, therefore notice issued by the Assessing Officer has to be quashed. No infirmity in the order passed by the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and satisfied himself that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act which was approved by the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax. 3) The ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition of ₹ 2,00,19,879/- made towards disallowance of interest on service tax, more particularly when the AO has noted that the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting and the accounts are prepared on accrual basis and the expenses incurred pertaining to the prior period are not to be debited to the P L a/c as per the Accounting Standards prescribed u/s. 145(2) of the Act. 4) The appellant craves leave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier year was mentioned in column No. 22(b) of the audit report filed in Form No.3CD and by considering the same, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment on 24/03/2016 after calling the various details in respect of revised return filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has already firmed opinion that the claim of the assessee of ₹ 2,00,19,879/- paid towards service tax is an allowable expenditure and accordingly allowed. Subsequently, this expenditure relates to earlier year and allowable in the current year is amounting to change of opinion and is not permissible according to law. For that he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [(2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scrutiny assessment u/sec. 143(3) dated 24/03/2016. In the assessment order, it was clearly mentioned that notice and questionnaire was issued and assessee submitted all the details as called for. It is also evident from the revised return of income that revision was solely for the purpose of claiming deduction towards interest on service tax, the same was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was completed without making any disallowance. From the above, it is very clear that the Assessing Officer consciously allowed the interest paid on the service tax by considering the revised return of income. Subsequently, a notice u/sec. 148 was issued on 28/03/2018 on the ground that interest on service tax relates to A.Y. 2011-12 and not allowab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and on the very same claim the Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the expenses claimed by the assessee relates to the earlier year i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 and not relating to the assessment year under consideration, in our opinion is merely a change of opinion and is not permissible as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra). We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred to case, are of the opinion that reopening of assessment is not valid, therefore notice issued by the Assessing Officer has to be quashed. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 10. So far as merits of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|