Appellate Tribunal bars reassessment; cites change of opinion by Assessing Officer; original order upheld.

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings as impermissible due to a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, citing jurisdictional grounds. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming that the issue had already been considered in the original assessment and the reassessment was invalid. The cross objections filed by the assessee were not addressed, and the original order passed by the Assessing Officer was set aside without considering the merits of the impugned addition.

---

---

Issues involved: Reopening of assessment proceedings based on surplus in shareholders account, validity of reassessment proceedings, jurisdictional grounds, and merits of the impugned addition.

Relevant Details:

1. The cross appeals were directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-2 Mumbai for A.Y. 2004-05. The assessee, engaged in life insurance business, declared a loss for the year. The Assessing Officer noticed a surplus in the shareholders account and issued a show-cause notice for potential taxation. The assessee argued that the surplus should be deducted from the deficit in the policyholders account u/s 44 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The Assessing Officer initially accepted the net loss as declared by the assessee but later sought to reopen the assessment, claiming that the income from shareholders account should be taxed separately. The assessee objected to the reopening, citing a change of opinion as impermissible in law. Despite objections, the Assessing Officer proceeded to compute the assessment based on the income from the shareholders account.

3. The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings before the CIT(A), invoking the decision in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. The CIT(A) held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the issue had already been considered in the original assessment. Consequently, the order passed by the Assessing Officer was quashed on jurisdictional grounds, and the merits were not considered.

4. The revenue appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the reassessment proceedings were valid. The Tribunal, considering the precedents and the identical circumstances, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The cross objections filed by the assessee were not taken up for adjudication as they were deemed academic.

5. The Tribunal concluded by dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee, in line with the decision pronounced on June 24, 2011.

---