9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 147 has not been validly initiated because the same has been initiated merely on a change of opinion without any fresh material coming into the possession of the AO - The reason must have live link with the formation of the belief. But in the present case, the materials facts which emerged for reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act, that were available during the original assessment. The view of the various Courts is that even after amendment of section 147, mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing officer to initiate proceedings for reassessment merely by resorting to Explanation 1 on the basis of change of opinion. reopening of the assessment is bad in law and hence, liable to be quashed. - Decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of sales in the P L account amounting to ₹ 2,55,390/- on account of suppression of sales in P L account, ₹ 18,525/- on account of non-disallowance of computer maintenance expenses, ₹ 40,000/- on account of undisclosed income and ₹ 35,460/- on account of non-disallowance of puja function expenses chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. 4. Since, in response to various notices including notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s. 144/147 of the Act on 30.6.2014, inter alia, making various disallowances as under: 1. Suppression of sales in P L account: ₹ 2,55,390/- 2. Non-disallowance of computer maint. : ₹ 18,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of M/s. Akshaya Soudharda Credit Cooperative Limited vs. ITO IN ITA No. 2574/Bang/2019, wherein, it has been held that even if the reassessment is in accordance with the proviso to section 147 of the Act, it cannot be made on a mere change of opinion. It was also held that even if an assessment is possibly reopened within a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment years, the reassessment would be bade in law if it is on a mere change of opinion. He also relied on the following judicial pronouncements on this issue: i) Parixit Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 352 ITR 349 (Guj) ii) Lahneyer Holdings Gmbh vs. DCIT, 375 ITR 60 (Del) iii) CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC) iv) Garden Silk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... geable to tax had escaped assessment. Such reason to believe, as held by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561, would mean a tangible material to enable the Assessing Officer to come to a conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. The reason must have live link with the formation of the belief. But in the present case, the materials facts which emerged for reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act, that were available during the original assessment. The view of the various Courts is that even after amendment of section 147, mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing officer to initiate proceedings for reassessment merely by resorti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
