Tribunal invalidates reassessment due to "mere change of opinion" under Sec 147. Capital gains disclosed, annuls assessment.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147, ruling that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid as it constituted a "mere change of opinion," following the precedent set in CIT, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. The Tribunal found that the capital gains had been disclosed in the original assessment under Section 143(3), rendering the reassessment unnecessary. The disallowance of Rs. 32,18,238 under LTCG was not addressed due to the jurisdictional grounds leading to the assessment's annulment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of Rs. 32,18,238/- under the head long-term capital gain (LTCG).

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148
The assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 148 was bad in law, arguing that the assessment was already completed under Section 143(3) and Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed this ground, noting that the assessee failed to provide evidence of previous assessments verifying the capital gains. The Tribunal observed that the sale transaction of the property and the corresponding LTCG had already been disclosed in the assessee's return filed in response to an earlier notice under Section 148 and considered in the original assessment under Section 143(3). The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment was based on a "mere change of opinion," which is not permissible under law, citing the Supreme Court judgment in CIT, Delhi Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment framed under Section 144 read with Section 147.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Rs. 32,18,238/- Under the Head Long-Term Capital Gain
The assessee claimed various deductions related to the indexed cost of acquisition, improvement, and other expenses, which were disallowed by the Assessing Officer (A.O) due to lack of substantiation. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the disallowance, stating that the assessee failed to furnish supporting material to substantiate the claims. However, since the Tribunal quashed the assessment on jurisdictional grounds, it did not address the merits of the disallowance, leaving the issue open.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the assessment framed under Section 144 read with Section 147 due to invalid assumption of jurisdiction based on a "mere change of opinion." The merits of the disallowance of Rs. 32,18,238/- under the head LTCG were not adjudicated.

---