TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year. In the present case as pointed out earlier the Assessing Officer and the ld. DR has not on record any new fact while recording the reasons u/s 147/148 of the Act. Therefore there is change of opinion. Moreover during the enquiries made in response to u/s 133(6) which was complied with there is no observation on the said compliance by the assessee and therefore in the circumstances and facts of the case the notice issued is lacking the reasons to believe and assessee having disclosed all the material facts in the original assessment and no new facts have been recorded in the reassessment proceedings - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 4198/Del./2016 - - - Dated:- 9-3-2017 - SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore that makes sufficient material and therefore the ld. CIT (A) is not justified in quashing the assessment. 4. The ld. AR on the other hand relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A) are for the sake of convenience the same is reproduced herein below:- The appellant objected the reopening u/s 147 on the ground that in the absence of any fresh evidence the AO could not change his opinion having accepted the share capital earlier on the same set of facts and evidence. It has been contended by the appellant that during the course of original assessment u/s 143(3), information received from the Investigation wing regarding the statement of Shri Tarun Goyal was available with the Assessing officer while framing the original assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment is also based on information received from the Investigation wing that Tarun Goyal has given accommodation entry and the same was available with the Assessing officer while framing the original assessment. As such I agree with the contention of the appellant that the action of the Assessing officer is merely change nf opinion and is not sustainable in view of the decision of Honble Delhi Highcourt in the case of CIT v. Usha International Ltd. [348 ITR 485 (Del)] Undisputedly, in this case, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the first proviso to section 147 is applicable, since the assessment was already concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the proviso, for taki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment was framed by Assessing Officer on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. As in the instant case the assessment was framed by Income Tax officer, Ward -10(4), New Delhi on the basis of reasons recorded by Income Tax officer, Ward -12(3), New Delhi. This was judicially held in the case of Hyoup Food and Oil Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT (2008) 307 ITR 115 (Guj and CIT Anr vs. Aslam Ullakhan (2010) 321 ITR 150 (Kar). I also agree with the contention of the AR that the report of the investigation wing which has been relied on by the department for re-opening of the assessment under section 148 of the Act was not a fresh or valid material which can lead to reopening of an assessment and the judgment in the case of ACIT v. Dhariya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e material facts in the original assessment and no new facts have been recorded in the reassessment proceedings and therefore the assessment/reassessment made has rightly made by the ld. CIT (A) is directed to be quashed. The reliance is placed on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi reported in 365 ITR 447, 378 ITR 351 in the cae of CIT vs. Multi Plex 386 ITR 8708, 717 Prahlad B. (Calcutta) and decision of ITAT Delhi E Bench in ITA 6087/De/2013 vide order dated 3.6.2016 in the case of Narendra Polycap Pvt. LTd. vs. ITO. 6. In the circumstances and facts of the case and decisions cited herein above as held by us herein above ld. CIT(A) having rightly quashed the assessment, all the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 7. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
