Tribunal rules against revenue in reassessment case, citing impermissible 'change of opinion' reopening

The Tribunal upheld the decision to quash the reassessment order, ruling that the reopening based on a "change of opinion" without new tangible material was impermissible. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, affirming the lack of jurisdiction for the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment under Section 147 using the same facts considered in the original assessment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening the assessment based on a "change of opinion."
2. Jurisdiction of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Entitlement of the assessee to deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for certain disallowed expenses.
4. Requirement of tangible material for reopening the assessment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment Based on a "Change of Opinion":
The primary issue was whether the reopening of the assessment was valid, given that it was based on a "change of opinion." The original assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 27/12/2011, accepting the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-IB(10). The Assessing Officer (A.O.) later reopened the case under Section 147, citing that the assessee's claim for deduction on "Other incomes" and disallowed expenses was not maintainable. However, the CIT(A) quashed the reassessment, observing that the reopening was based on the same facts available during the original assessment and constituted a mere "change of opinion," which is not permissible under law. This view was supported by the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., which held that a "change of opinion" cannot justify reopening an assessment.

2. Jurisdiction of Notice Issued Under Section 148:
The notice issued under Section 148 dated 18.02.2014 was challenged on the grounds of jurisdiction. The CIT(A) held that the notice was without jurisdiction since the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were based on the same material considered during the original assessment. The CIT(A) cited several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court rulings, which state that reopening an assessment without new tangible material amounts to a change of opinion and is not permissible.

3. Entitlement of the Assessee to Deduction Under Section 80-IB(10) for Certain Disallowed Expenses:
The A.O. had restricted the assessee's entitlement to deduction under Section 80-IB(10), arguing that the disallowed expenses (u/s 40(a), 40(a)(ia), employees contribution to PF, 43B, and donations) did not qualify for deduction. The assessee contended that these disallowed expenses were part of its business income and had been accepted during the original assessment. The CIT(A) found that the A.O. had already considered these issues during the original assessment, and there was no new material to justify reopening the case.

4. Requirement of Tangible Material for Reopening the Assessment:
The CIT(A) and the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of "tangible material" for reopening an assessment. The reassessment was quashed because the A.O. did not present any new tangible material but merely revisited the same facts and issues already considered in the original assessment. This principle was reinforced by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., which mandates the presence of tangible material for reopening an assessment to prevent arbitrary use of power by the A.O.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment order, agreeing that the reopening was based on a mere "change of opinion" without any new tangible material. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, affirming that the A.O. lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 147 based on the same facts previously considered.

---