Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 213 - AT - Income TaxReassessment - Validity of order of the CIT(A) quashing the re-assessment – Mere change of opinion – Held that:- The decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Kelvinator Of India Limited [2002 (4) TMI 37 - DELHI High Court] and circular no.549 of CBDT followed - on mere change of opinion of AO cannot be a ground for re-assessment and that amendment of sec. 147 w.e.f. 01.04.89 has not altered the position - In Garden Silks Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax [1998 (11) TMI 108 - GUJARAT High Court] it has been held that “however wide the scope of taking action u/s 148 of IT Act, it does not confirm jurisdiction on change of the interpretation of a particular provision earlier adopted by the assessing authority - For coming to the conclusion that there has been excessive loss or depreciation allowance or that there has been under assessment or assessment at a lower rate or for applying other provisions of explanation 2 to sec. 147, it must be on material and it should have nexus for holding such opinion contrary to what has been expressed earlier - Even after the amendment of sec. 147, mere change of opinion does not confirm jurisdiction on the ITO to initiate proceeding for reassessment merely by resorting to explanation 1 to sec. 147. The AO is not justified in reopening the assessment on mere change of opinion - The assessee filed explanation and evidences before the AO at original assessment stage explaining the investment in the properties – thus, the seized material which is basis of reopening of assessment was considered at the original assessment stage in the light of the explanation of the assessee supported by evidences. The propriety demands that the AO should not have resorted to proceedings to reopen assessment on identical facts - All facts were all along were within the knowledge of the AO at original assessment stage, therefore, re-appreciation of evidence at subsequent re-assessment proceedings is not permitted on mere change of opinion by subsequent AO - The re-assessment proceedings have been initiated again on similar issue and totally on identical facts regarding investment in property which have already been considered in the original assessment proceedings - It is a case of change of opinion and such a change of opinion for reopening of section 147 is not permitted under law - The AO in the re-assessment order himself has mentioned that addition is made on account of unexplained expenditure/investment in the properties in the original assessment order - Such facts recorded by the AO in the reassessment order clearly strengthen the stand of the assessee for quashing of reassessment proceedings - No new material or fresh information have been received at the re-assessment stage. The re-appreciation of seized material in subsequent proceedings by the AO is wholly unjustified particularly when such a seized material was not considered worthy by the CIT(A) in the original appellate proceedings deleting the addition on the seized material – thus, there is no question of re-appreciating the same facts which have been duly considered by the first appellate authority prior to reopening of assessment - The CIT(A) on proper appreciation of facts and material on record, rightly quashed the reassessment proceedings – thus, there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue.
|