TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial to show as to how the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range III, Mumbai, came to the conclusion that the value of the assets should be determined as NIL. Thus, we find that the impugned reassessment proceedings was a clear case of change of opinion and therefore, the proceedings could not have been initiated under Section 147 of the Act. There is no error or infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 849 & 850 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 3-4-2018 - T. S. Sivagnanam And N. Seshasayee, JJ. For Appellant : Ms. K.G.Usha Rani For Respondent : Mr.Vikram Vijaya Raghavan, for, M/s. Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan ORDER ( Judgement of the Court was delive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Revenue is before us challenging the said common order. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Revenue, in both the Appeals, referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer v. Selected Dalurband Coal Company (P) Ltd., reported in (1996) 217 ITR 597 (SC) to sustain the reopening as done by the Assessing Officer, because the Assessing Officer had information from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range III, Mumbai, with regard to the value of the assets on which the assessee claimed the depreciation. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent / Assessee, in each of the above appeals, sought to sustain the common order passed by the Tribunal and submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Special Range III, Mumbai referred to above. As stated earlier, the copy of the letter does not seem to have been placed on record and at least has not been made available to me. Therefore, I am not in a position to comment upon the quality of information contained int he said letter. However, from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it appears that the JCIT, Special Range III, Mumbai, informed the Assessing Officer that these assets were very old and therefore therefore, their value was NIL. However, no basis of giving the value NIL has been placed on record. This merely seems to be an opinion of the JCIT which cannot be called to be an information. 5.1.7. As stated earlier the Assessing Officer did not have any definite in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence to support the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. 11. Further more, we find that there is no material to show as to how the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range III, Mumbai, came to the conclusion that the value of the assets should be determined as NIL. Thus, we find that the impugned reassessment proceedings was a clear case of change of opinion and therefore, the proceedings could not have been initiated under Section 147 of the Act. 12. Thus, for the above said reasons, we find that there is no error or infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeals, filed by the Revenue, are dismissed and the question of law framed is answered against the Revenue and in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
