TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examining reasons to believe , we are not required to examine the stage of change of opinion . In the instant case before us, the information regarding dues from Iraqi Government was available at the time of regular assessment u/s 143(3) in the form of notes to account of annual report, which is evident from the reasons recorded. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.3768/Del./2017 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2021 - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri O.P. Kant, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Gurmel Singh, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 10/02/2017 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-39, New Delhi [in short the Ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2009-10 raising following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the reopening of the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act as void ab initio. 2. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime of the original assessment but also was essentially a part of the Notes to Accounts forming part of the return of income. Further, it was emphasized during the appeal hearing that the point regarding the nonrestatement of interest on deferred Iraqi dues as on the balance sheet date as on 31/03/2009 was already argued at the time of the original assessment by mentioning, inter alia, Original assessment in this case was made u/s 143(3) after considering the relevant material having bearing on the issue at hand explaining as to why the outstanding liabilities cannot be restated on the balance sheet date of this year or of earlier years since payment has not been forthcoming since last two decades . While the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the cases mentioned above rests on the plank that up to four years an assessment is open to the AO s unreserved consideration on his formation of the requisite belief whose formation is not a judicial decision but an administrative decision, yet in that case the AO while making an order of protective assessment in respect of AY 1993-94 found that there was a transfer in favour of the partnership firm by the assessee of his tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not itself confer jurisdiction upon the AO to reopen the proceeding without anything further as that would amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong . Further, upholding this decision of the Delhi High Court, the Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) observed that the power to reopen assessments w e f 1/04/1989 was much wider and also observed, inter alia, However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words reason to believe failing which, we are afraid, Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of mere change of opinion , which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of change of opinion is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, the question of change of opinion does not arise. The Ld. DR also relied on the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bawa Abhai Singh Vs DCIT (2001), 253 ITR 83 (Del) and decision of Hon ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Praful Chunnilal Patel Vs M. J. Makwana CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 832 (Guj). 4. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee filed a paper-book electronically containing pages 1 to 211. He submitted that disclosure of the facts relating to Iraqi dues was made in note No.14 of schedule R of balance-sheet of the assessee company and this note was appearing in assessee s accounts for more than last 10 years. He submitted that during this period several scrutiny assessments have been done and no objection had been raised in any of those years. According to him, taking different view of the matter in the instant year amounts to change of opinion. He relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to support his arguments. He further submitted: (i) that in view of the following decisions, in absence of any fresh tangible material, the Assessing Officer is excluded from reopening the assessment even within four years from the end of the assessment year merely on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: 5.1 In the case before us, the assessment which was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, has been reopened within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, issue in dispute before us is that in what circumstances assessment can be reopened within the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. This issue has been discussed and adjudicated by Hon ble High Court s and Supreme Court in various decisions, which have been cited by parties before us. 5.2 In the case of Bawa Abhai Singh Vs CIT (supra) relied upon by the Learned DR, the issue involved the issue involved was whether the report of the valuation officer constitute information on the basis of which assessment can be reopened. The Hon ble High Court in their decision dated 23/03/2001 analyzed the provisions of section 147 of the Act prior to 31/03/1989 and provisions thereafter and held that after the amendment to section 147 of the Act, an assessment can be reopened u/s 147 within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 89, two conditions were required to be fulfilled to confer jurisdiction on the AO to act under s. 147(b). They were (1) he must have information which comes into his possession subsequent to the making of the original assessment order, and (2) that information must lead to his belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, or that it has been underassessed or assessed at too low a rate or has been made the subject of excessive relief. After 1st April, 1989, the position is somewhat different. Sec. 147 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, provides that where AO has reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year he may apply the provisions of ss. 148 to 153. He may assess or reassess the income which has escaped assessment. It is to be noted that s. 147 as it stands w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, not only merges cls. (a) and (b) of the preamended s. 147 but also brings about a significant change in the preliminary requirement of certain conditions mandatory in character before reassessment proceedings should be initiated in the pre-amended section. Conditions precedent for initiation of action under s. 147(a) or 147(b) of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ully and truly all material facts for his assessment for that assessment year. Therefore, it is only when the case falls under the proviso that the question of non-disclosure of material facts would become relevant. In such cases, if the assessee has made full disclosure on record, then even if such income has escaped assessment, no action can be initiated by the AO under this section. Where, however, the said period of four years has not expired, the conduct of the assessee regarding disclosure of material facts need not be the basis for initiating the proceedings and they can be commenced if the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment notwithstanding that there was full disclosure of material facts on record. The assessee in such cases cannot defend the initiation of action on the ground that the facts were already placed on record and that the AO must have or ought to have considered them. Expln. 1 to s. 147 of the said Act has a bearing on disclosure aspect and it applies to the proviso to the extent it allows initiation of the proceedings under s. 147 on account of non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee. Expln. 2 applies to the entire sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relevant material was on record or could have been with due diligence discerned by the AO for the purpose of assessing a particular item of income chargeable to tax, it cannot be inferred that the AO must necessarily have deliberated over it and taken it out while ascertaining the taxable income or that he had formed any opinion in respect thereof. If looking back it appears to the AO, (albeit within four years of the end of the relevant assessment year) that a particular item even though reflected on the record was not subjected to assessment and was left out while working out the taxable income and the tax payable thereon, i.e., while making the final assessment order, that would enable him to initiate the proceedings irrespective of the question of non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee. In fact, if there is material placed on record which would show existence of income chargeable to tax and which ordinarily ought to have been included in the ascertainment of taxable income made in the assessment order but was not so included, that would itself provide a cause or justification for a belief to the AO that such income had escaped assessment and the AO in such cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the phrase reason to believe would mean cause or justification. If the AO has a cause or justification to think or suppose that income had escaped assessment, he can be said to have a reason to believe that such income had escaped assessment. The words reason to believe , cannot mean that the AO should have finally ascertained the facts by legal evidence. They only mean that he forms a belief from the examination he makes and if he likes from any information that he receives. If he discovers or finds or satisfies himself that the taxable income has escaped assessment, it would amount to saying that he had reason to believe that such income had escaped assessment. The justification of his belief is not to be judged from the standards of proof required for coming to a final decision. A belief though justified for the purpose of initiation of the proceedings under s. 147, may ultimately stand altered after the hearing and while reaching the final conclusion on the basis of the intervening enquiry. At the stage where he finds a cause or justification to believe that such income has escaped assessment, the AO is not required to base his belief on any final adjudication of the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15. It is a well settled principle of law that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. If the ITO does not possess the power of review, he cannot be permitted to achieve the said object by taking recourse to initiating a proceeding of reassessment or by way of rectification of mistake. In a case of this nature the Revenue is not without remedy. Sec. 263 of the Act empowers the CIT to review an order which is prejudicial to the Revenue. 16. In Bawa Abhai Singh s case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) is a Member, clearly held : The crucial expression is reason to believe . The expression predicates that the AO must hold a belief.......by the existence of reasons for holding such a belief. In other words, it contemplates existence of reason on which belief is founded and not merely a belief in the existence of reasons inducing the belief. Such a belief may not be based merely on reasons but it must be founded on information. As was observed in Ganga Saran Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1981) 22 CTR (SC) 112 : (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) : TC 51R.639, the expression reason to believe is stronger than the expression i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, which belief can be reached in any manner and is not qualified by a precondition of faith and true disclosure of material fact by an assessee as contemplated in the pre-amended s. 147(a) of the Act and AO can under the amended provisions legitimately reopen the assessment in respect of an income which has escaped assessment. Viewed in that angle power to reopen assessment is much wider under the amended provision and can be exercised even after assessee has disclosed fully and truly all the material facts. To similar view were the conclusions of this Court in Rakesh Aggarwal vs. Asstt. CIT (1997) 142 CTR (Del) 272 : (1997) 225 ITR 496 (Del) : TC S51.4080, it is to be noted at this juncture that the twin conditions must be fulfilled if the case is one which is covered by the proviso to s. 147 operative w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. [Emphasis, italicised in print, supplied by us]. It is evident from the afore-extracted position of the decision that it is not an authority for the proposition that a mere change in the opinion would also confer jurisdiction upon the AO to initiate a proceeding under s. 147 of the Act as was contended by Mr. Jolly. 17. A decision as is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it can be conferred also on the assessees who have approached the Settlement Commission under s. 245C of the Act on such terms and conditions as contained in the circular. In our opinion, it is for this purpose that s. 245F of the Act has empowered the Settlement Commission to exercise the power of an IT authority under the Act. We must clarify here that while exercising the power derived under the circulars of the board, the Commission does not act as a subordinate to the Board but will be enforcing the relaxed provisions of the circulars for the benefit of the assessee in the process of settlement. 19. The Board in exercise of its jurisdiction under the aforementioned provisions had issued the circular on 31st Oct., 1989. The said circular admittedly is binding on the Revenue. The authority, therefore, could not have taken a view, which would run counter to the mandate of the said circular. Clause 7.2 as referred to hereinbefore is important. From a perusal of cl. 7.2 of the said circular it would appear that in no uncertain terms it was stated as to under what circumstances the amendments had been carried out i.e., only with a view to allay the fears that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t report which was not before the ITO, but it is another thing to say that such information can be derived by the material which had been supplied by the assessee himself. 23. We also cannot accept submission of Mr. Jolly to the effect that only because in the assessment order, detailed reasons have not been recorded on analysis of the materials on the record by itself may justify the AO to initiate a proceeding under s. 147 of the Act. The said submission is fallacious. An order of assessment can be passed either in terms of sub-s. (1) of s. 143 or sub-s. (3) of s. 143. When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of the said sub-s. (3) of s. 143 a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It is well known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of cl. (e) of s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act the judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. If it be held that an order which has been passed purportedly without application of mind would itself confer jurisdiction upon the AO to reopen the proceeding without anything further, the same would amount to giving premium to an authority exer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to s. 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove. Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not only deleted the words reason to believe but also inserted the word opinion in s. 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the companies against omission of the words reason to believe , Parliament re-introduced the said expression and deleted the word opinion on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the AO. We quote hereinbelow the relevant portion of Circular No. 549, dt. 31st Oct., 1989 [(1990) 82 CTR (St) 1], which reads as follows : 7.2 Amendment made by the Amending Act, 1989, to reintroduce the expression reason to believe in s. 147.-A number of representations were received against the omission of the words reason to believe from s. 147 and their substitution by the opinion of the AO. It was pointed out that the meaning of the expression, reason to believe had been explained in a number of Court rulings in the past and was well settled and its omission from s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act then it is not open to him to turn around and claim that certain aspects of the claim under Section 80IC of the Act were not considered by him. It is undisputed as pointed out above, Section 80IC of the Act was a subject matter of enquiry and this resulted in disallowance of ₹ 11.49 Crores out of the claim for ₹ 33.67 Crores made by the Respondent under Section 80IC of the Act. The decision of this Court in Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. (supra), in our view, would have no application to the present facts as in that case admittedly during the regular assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the issue sought to be raised in the re-opening proceedings. In the aforesaid decision, it was held that the Assessing Officer has ignored relevant material in arriving at an assessment contrary to law. It was also found as a fact in the above case of Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. (supra) that no query was raised during the course of the regular assessment proceedings. Thus, the occasion for the Assessing Officer to apply his mind to the claim by the Respondent- Assessee in that case, did not arise. As against the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng case to establish that the receipts in question never related to the present assessment year. The Assessing Officer simply cannot take shelter under the ground that all these aspects can be examined under the reassessment proceedings. When the very foundation of the reassessment is missing, it would be impermissible for the Assessing Officer to carry on the reassessment based on such notice. 5.9 Evidently, the facts of the above case are distinguishable from the fact of the instant case and, therefore, the ratio of the above decision is not applicable in the case of the assessee. 5.10 In the case of Tulsi Developers (supra), assessment for assessment year 2005-06 was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 10/10/2007. In the said assessment interest income from fixed deposits was treated as part of business profit and deduction for salary to the partners was given accordingly after computing book profit under section 40(b) of the Act. The assessment was reopened by view of issue of notice dated 05/02/2010 on reasons recorded that the interest from FDR should have been taxed under the head income from other sources and thus book profit and salary to the partne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od. The Hon ble High Court in the order dated 12/04/2010 held that a specific query was raised by the Assessing Officer in the regular assessment in relation to the very issue which forms the basis of reasons recorded in the petition and replied the same in response to notice under section 142(1) before the assessment was originally framed, thus the successor AO has come to a different opinion on the same set of the facts. The finding of the Hon ble High Court is reproduced as under: 9. A plain reading of the reasons recorded would indicate that the assessing officer is of the opinion that the method of accounting employed by the Assessee was to be given a go-bye and estimated profit had to be worked out by applying rate of 10 per cent to the value of work-in-progress. In the entire reasons recorded, there is nothing on record to show as to what income had escaped assessment for which the assessing officer received information subsequently, either from external source, or from any other source. 10. As against that, when one goes through the various submissions made by the Petitioner in response to notices under Section 142(1) of the Act, before the assessment was original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omitted, the same would give arbitrary powers to the assessing officer to reopen the past assessment on mere change of opinion and this is not permissible even as per legislative intent. 5.12 In the case of Nityanand Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) also the Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had called for assessee s explanation on the issue, which was in opinion needed consideration and only after verification of the details passed the original assessment order, accordingly, it was held that once an assessment is completed under section 143(3) of the Act, after raising a query on the particular issue and accepting assessee s reply to the query, the AO had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment unless and until there is additional information/tangible material before the Assessing Officer to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income. Similar finding has been given by the Tribunal in the case of Ms. Seema Dilip Vohra (supra). The relevant paragraph of the decision is reproduced as under: 2.19. Under the amended provisions of section 147, an assessment can be reopened if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, we are of the view, that mere fresh application of mind to the same set of facts or mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer even under the post 1989 section 147 of the Act. Our view find support from the decision from Hon ble Delhi High court in Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst. DIT (2014) 362 ITR 577 (Del.). Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Malayala Manorma Company Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 378 (Ker.) We think this thread runs through the various provisions of the Act. But Explanation 1 to the section confines the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Court in CWT vs Imperial Tobacco Company Ltd. (1966) 61 ITR 461 has noted such divergence of opinion on the point. Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Sir Mohammad Yusuf Ismail (1944) 12 ITR 8 (Bom.) held that mere change of opinion on the same facts are on question of law or mere discovery of mistake of law is not sufficient information and that in order to sustain action u/s 34 by further holding that reassessment is not permissible. The Hon ble Apex Court in Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 held that errorless legally correct order cannot be reopened, therefore, it is settled law that without any new information and on the basis of mere change of opinion, reopening of assessment is not permissible. As was held in CIT vs TTK Prestige ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 390 (Karn.) SLP dismissed in 2010 322 ITR (St.) 14 (SC). Reference also made to Asian Paints ltd. vs DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom.), Andhra Bank Ltd. vs CIT (1997) 225 ITR 447 (SC). The observations of the Supreme Court are a protection against the abuse of power; they also protect the Revenue which can, in the light of subsequent coming into light of facts or law, reopen the assessment. In the light of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rated with effect from 1st April, 1989. The new statutory provisions do not refer to the word information and nature, type or character of information. No doubt, the scope and ambit of the amended reassessment provisions is wider, but what is relevant and important is that cases of change of opinion are not covered or protected under the re-enacted reopening provisions. 5.14 In the case of Rasalika Trading and Investment Company Private Limited (supra), the assessment for assessment year 2005-06 was completed on 24/12/2007 under section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, on receipt of information from the DIT (Investigation), that the assessee is beneficiary of bogus accommodation entries, the assessment was reopened by view of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. Before the Hon ble High Court, the assessee submitted that the material on the basis of which records to section 148 of the Act was proposed, existed even when the original regular assessment was completed and therefore reasons recorded were based on stale material. It was submitted that matter had been specifically enquired and gone into by the Revenue. The Hon ble High Court in the order dated 14/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 147/148 is really the result of a change of opinion - and thus beyond the pale of the AD's jurisdiction and falling under the illustration spelt out in Kelvinator (India) Ltd. (supra). Consequently, the impugned notice and all proceedings further thereto are beyond the authority of law and are hereby quashed. 5.15 In the case of Tupperware India Private Limited (supra), the return of income filed by the assessee for assessment year 2003-04 was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and no assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed. The notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 21/10/2005 (within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year). In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer noted that in the audit report it was mentioned that the assessee had made certain payments without deduction of tax at source and, therefore, such payment was inadmissible under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Hon ble High Court in the order dated 10/08/2015 observed that question examined by the court in CIT Vs. Orient Craft Ltd., (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del.), was identical to the question sought to be projected by the Revenue in the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. . 11. The foundation of the AO s jurisdiction and the raison d etre of a reassessment notice are the reasons to believe . Now this should have a relation or a link with an objective fact, in the form of information or facts external to the materials on the record. Such external facts or material constitute the driver, or the key which enables the authority to legitimately re-open the completed assessment. In absence of this objective trigger , the AO does not possess jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is at the next stage that the question, whether the re-opening of assessment amounts to review or change of opinion arises. In other words, if there are no reasons to believe based on new, tangible materials , then the reopening amounts to an impermissible review. Here, there is nothing to show what triggered the issuance of notice of reassessment no information or new facts which led the AO to believe that full disclosure had not been made. The impugned notice, the AO s order rejecting the objections, and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght which were not previously disclosed or some information with regard to the facts previously disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh information. Since the belief is that of the Income-tax Officer, the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief is not for the Court to judge but it is open to an assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief or that the belief was not a bona fide one or was based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information. To that limited extent, the Court may look into the conclusion arrived at by the Income- tax Officer and examine whether there was any material available on the record from which the requisite belief could be formed by the Income-tax Officer and further whether that material had any rational connection or a live link for the formation of the requisite belief. . . . (p. 477) 18. Following the settled trend of judicial opinion and the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court time and agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar is valid even if there is a true and full disclosure of material facts by the assessee in the original assessment proceeding. The learned counsel, however, of the view that even after amendment to section 147 w.e.f. 01.04.1989, the principle that merely on change of opinion without any fresh material the Assessing Officer is not permitted to reopen the assessment within four years from the end of relevant assessment year, if the same was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The issue of reopening of regular assessments from the end of the relevant assessment year has been examined by the Hon ble Delhi High Court (Full bench) in the case of Kelvinators India Ltd. (supra) , which has been further upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court, it is held that where the assessing officer has applied his mind on particular issue in regular assessment proceeding, the assessment cannot be reopen within the period of years from the end of the relevant assessment year, merely on the change of the opinion without any tangible material. 5.20 We have already discussed the decisions cited by the learned counsel of the assessee wherein the Hon ble Court has held change of opinion i.e. Century Text ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Assessing Officer. The word reason in the phrase reason to believe mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to think or suppose that income is escaped assessment, he can be said to have reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment. Under the provisions of section 147 of the Act, the AO has been authorized to re-assess the income subject to condition provided, but the AO does not have power to review his own judgment. 5.24 In the instant case before us, the information regarding dues from Iraqi Government was available at the time of regular assessment u/s 143(3) in the form of notes to account of annual report, which is evident from the reasons recorded, which are reproduced as under, for ready reference : The assessment 143(3) of the IT Act, of M/s. Ircon International Ltd. for the assessment year 2009-10 was completed on 30.12.2011 at income of ₹ 1,68,77,00,674/-. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that the assessee company has translated the accrued interest on deferred Iragi dues and provisions for interest to sub-contractors at exchange rates prevalent in 1995 and not translated at the rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
