Reopening under s.147/s.143(3) quashed where deductions were refundable deposits shown as assets and no new evidence

ITAT RAIPUR held that deductions treated as performance guarantees/deposits were refundable deposits and should have been shown as assets; however, reopening under s.147/s.143(3) was quashed because the A.O. relied solely on a change of opinion without any fresh material or information after conclusion of the original assessment. In absence of new tangible evidence indicating escaped income, the reassessment was invalid for lack of jurisdiction. Decision: assessment under s.143(3)/147 quashed and matter decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 11,49,738/- on account of performance guarantee.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 18,95,121/- on account of miscellaneous deposit/other deposit.
3. Validity of jurisdiction assumed by the A.O. for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition on Account of Performance Guarantee
The A.O. observed that the assessee, a Civil Contractor, did not disclose Rs. 11,49,738/- deducted by the PWD as performance guarantee in the balance sheet, treating it as an undisclosed investment under Section 69. The CIT(A) vacated this addition, stating that the assessee had consistently treated such deductions as contract expenses in the Profit & Loss account, considering them as non-refundable. The CIT(A) found that the assessee's accounting practice was justified and consistent, thus deleting the addition.

Issue 2: Deletion of Addition on Account of Miscellaneous Deposit/Other Deposit
Similarly, the A.O. added Rs. 18,95,121/- for miscellaneous deposits not disclosed in the balance sheet, considering it as unexplained investment under Section 69. The CIT(A) also deleted this addition, agreeing with the assessee's consistent practice of treating such amounts as expenses in the Profit & Loss account and only recognizing them as income upon actual receipt.

Issue 3: Validity of Jurisdiction for Reopening the Assessment
The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment under Section 147, arguing that it was based on a mere "change of opinion" without any fresh material. The Tribunal upheld this objection, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India, which prohibits reopening based on a change of opinion. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. had already considered the relevant expenses in the original assessment, and no new information had emerged to justify reopening. Thus, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment for lack of valid jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions, and quashed the reassessment for want of valid jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized that reopening based merely on a change of opinion is not permissible under the law.

---