Assessing Officer's Reopened Assessment Overturned for Impermissible Change of Opinion

The appellate tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's decision to reopen the assessment, based on the same material already before the AO during the original assessment, amounted to a impermissible change of opinion. Relying on legal precedents, the tribunal quashed the flawed assessment proceedings, allowing the appeal of the assessee on legal grounds.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s.148 of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the assessment under section 147 r.w.s.148 of the Income Tax Act. The AO reopened the case based on information received from DGIT(Inv.) Wing, Mumbai, alleging that the appellant was a beneficiary of Hawala purchase entries. The appellant provided bills, vouchers, and other evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases. However, the AO concluded that the purchases were Hawala transactions, estimating the profit at 12.50% and making an addition to the income. The appellant contended that the reopening was based on the same material already before the AO during the original assessment, which amounted to a change of opinion. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening, stating that specific material received from the investigation wing was not verified during the original assessment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on this technical issue.

The appellate tribunal observed that during the original assessment proceedings, the AO had already sought details of sales and purchases, which were duly provided by the appellant. The parties identified as Hawala parties in the reopening proceedings were originally disclosed to the AO during the original assessment. The tribunal found that the reopening was based on the same material concerning the same parties that were previously examined by the AO. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that the reopening was a mere change of opinion by the AO, which is impermissible under the law. Citing the decision in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., the tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were flawed and therefore quashed. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed on legal grounds, rendering further adjudication unnecessary.

In conclusion, the tribunal found that the AO's decision to reopen the assessment was based on the same material already before the AO during the original assessment, constituting a change of opinion. The tribunal held that such a reopening was impermissible under the law, following legal precedents and ultimately allowing the appeal of the assessee on legal grounds.

---