TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 143(3) of the Act. Consequently, the reopening notices for both the assessment years were not based on reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as it proceeds on a mere change of opinion Thus, following the Apex Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] the impugned order of the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late Tribunal (Tribunal). The impugned order is a common order in respect of the Assessment Years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. The present appeals concern itself with Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2004-05. 2. The Revenue has for the two assessment years raised an identical question of law for our consideration, as under : (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowance of expenditure made by the Assessing Officer on the aforesaid account was set aside. 4. Thereafter, on 20th March, 2009, the Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment for two subject assessment years. The reason recorded in the reopening notices was treatment to be given to the technology expenses incurred by the respondent assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal is unexceptionable as on the finding of fact that the notices of reopening are based on change of opinion, it applied the law as laid down by the Apex Court in Kelvinator of India (supra) that reopening notices on a mere change in opinion were not sustainable. 7. Accordingly, these appeals do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 8. Both the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
