Revenue's Reopening Appeal Dismissed for Change of Opinion on Stock Valuation.

The Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)'s decision to cancel the assessment due to invalid reopening was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found the reopening was a mere change of opinion, not permissible by law, as the valuation of closing stock was previously examined during the original assessment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing the need for thorough examination in assessments and legal principles governing reopening. The assessee's cross objection on the under-valuation of closing stock was also dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
Validity of reopening assessment based on alleged under-valuation of closing stock.

Analysis:
The appeal involved the Revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) regarding the reopening of assessment and addition made on account of under-valuation of closing stock. The assessee, a partnership firm in the real estate business, filed its return for the year declaring total income. The assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer under S.148, alleging under-valuation of closing stock. The assessee objected to the reopening, citing that the issue was thoroughly examined during the original assessment under S.143(3). The Assessing Officer made an addition to the total income, leading to an appeal by the assessee before the CIT(A).

The CIT(A) held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion. The assessment made by the Assessing Officer was canceled. The CIT(A) did not delve into the issue of under-valuation of closing stock due to the invalidity of the assessment. The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision, contending the assessment was not examined during the original proceedings. The assessee argued that all relevant details were provided during the original assessment, and the valuation of closing stock was duly examined.

The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and material on record. It noted that the Assessing Officer had examined the valuation of closing stock during the original assessment, as evidenced by order sheet entries and correspondence. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the reopening of assessment based on the same issue was a mere change of opinion, not permissible in law. Citing the Supreme Court's decision, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Regarding the cross objection by the assessee, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to decide on the addition made on the under-valuation of closing stock due to the invalidity of the assessment. The cross objection was dismissed. In conclusion, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objection were dismissed.

This detailed analysis highlights the core issue of the validity of reopening the assessment based on alleged under-valuation of closing stock. The judgment emphasizes the importance of thorough examination during original assessments and the legal principles governing the reopening of assessments.

---