TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded are based on same facts/information as was available on record, when the original assessment proceedings were conducted, that too after enquiry, since complete facts were available with the department and no new facts came into existence, reopening of assessment on identical facts is clearly a case of change of opinion and not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 814/KOL/ 2012 - - - Dated:- 14-8-2015 - Shri S.V. Mehrotra, Accountant Member and Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member For The Assessee : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate and Shri Sunil Surana, FCA, For The Department : Shri S.M. Sarbarazut Tauheed, Sr. D.R. ORDER Per S.V. Mehrotra: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrough the findings given by the AO and submission filed by the AR. The main objection of the AR is that assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 because of an audit objection. In order to strengthen submission, the AR has relied on various judgments given by different courts. I have gone through the AR s submission and different case laws given by him. No case law and no judgment given by the AR says that reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is invalid because of an audit objection. In fact, in practice the audit party raises objections in many cases. But objections raised by audit party as a matter of practice, are not accepted in all cases. In many cases, the audit parties are informed/replied in writing tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings and as such it cannot be used for reopening the assessment u/s.147 of I.T. Act, 1961 even though it was pointed out by the audit party and consequently the reopening of assessment on this information is nothing but change of opinion and therefore the reopening of assessment ujs.147 is bad in law and void-ab-initio. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer representing advance received in the past by treating as income due to alleged cessation of liability u/s. 41 (1) of I.T. Act, 1961. 4. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) should have held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ategorized as non performing assets, It was written off in our books of accounts during financial year 1996-97. Hence, there has been no outstanding in the name of M/s. Jalan Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. as on 01.04.2004 and 31.03.2005. The amount paid to Jalan Industries Pvt. Ltd. during 1994-95 as an advance and written off by us during 1997-98 in our books of account remained recoverable from M/s. Jalan Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. as on 01.04.2004 also as on 31.03.2005. Our PAN is AAACT 7590B and we are assessed by ACIT, Circl e-2, Dibrugarh, Assam . Ld. counsel further referred to reply filed before the Assessing officer dated 25.07.2007 in which the assessee has clearly stated regarding the facts relating to advance of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
