Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 307 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Change of opinion - reopening of concluded assessment - proof of fresh material or information with AO to reopen the assessment - directions to rectify the assessee”s claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the “reasons to believe” on the basis of which the case of the assessee had been reopened, we find, that it is a matter of fact borne from the record that no new information/material had came to the notice of the A.O (after completion of the original assessment) which would have justified the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 - as observed by the A.O, and rightly so, a perusal of the opening line of the reasons recorded for reopening the case of the assessee, viz. "On perusal of balance sheet and computation of income, it is observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee has transferred an amount of ₹ 410.00 crore to special reserve, while the corresponding deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act has been claimed at ₹ 456.43 crore" ,reveals beyond any scope of doubt that the A.O had reopened the concluded assessment only on the ground that the assessee had claimed an excess deduction of ₹ 46.43 crore, which in our considered view is nothing but clearly an attempt on his part to review/re-examine the assessee”s claim for deduction on the basis of the same material/accounts/workings/computation as were available before his predecessor at the time of framing of the original assessment, vide his order passed u/s 143(3). We are of a strong conviction that in the garb of reopening the case of the assessee he had on the basis of the same set of facts as were available on record at the time of framing of the original assessment, tried to substitute his view as against that of his predecessor. In fact, we are unable to comprehend as to what new “material” or “information” had came to the notice of the A.O after the framing of the original assessment, which would have justified the reopening of its case. As can safely be gathered from a perusal of the reasons to believe, we are of the considered view that the A.O with the sole objective of substituting his view as against that of his predecessor had sought to reopen the case of the assessee bank. We are afraid that such a substitution of a view of a successor A.O cannot form a justifiable basis for reopening the case of an assessee. As decided in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India[2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] that merely on the basis of a “change of opinion” the case of an assessee cannot be reopened. We, thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A) who had rightly struck down the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 147 r.w.s 143(3), dated 12.03.2013 by holding the reopening of the assessment as bad in law, uphold the same - Decided in favour of assessee.
|