2015 (1) TMI 307

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. At the time of hearing Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla ld. DR defended the conclusion arrived at by the AO by submitting that firstly there was no change of opinion and secondly the entire insurance commission was received in the year under consideration, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) while arriving at a particular conclusion ignored true facts. On the other hand, Ms. Aarti Vissanji, ld. Counsel for the Assessee defended the conclusion arrived at by the ld. CIT(A) by submitting that the basis on which re-opening was done by the AO had already been considered by him during original assessment proceedings, therefore, re-opening of assessment on same facts/basis is certainly change of opinion. It was also asserted that vide letter dated 23/9/2005,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wing years. Please note that as per the method of accounting followed by the company a commission for re-insurance business is to be recognised over the contract period." 2.3 It is also noted that the assessee vide letter dated 23/9/2005 (Page-1 of the paper book) enclosed the documents which are available on the letter and vide document No.5 product-wise break-up of unearned commission was furnished, the explanation of which was made available at Page-2 of the paper book. The product wise break-up is further available at page-5 of the paper book which was made available to the AO during original assessment proceedings. The AO raised various queries to which the assessee vide letter dated 26/12/2005 furnished a detailed reply (pages-5 to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r is not unbridled one. It is hedged with several safeguards conceived in the interest of eliminating room for abuse of this power by the AO. Our view is fortified by the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (103 ITR 437) and Shri Krishna (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (221 ITR 538)(SC). The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. vs. ITO (114 ITR 404) even went to the extent that re- assessment based on new views on the same facts is not permissible and similarly the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Century Enka Ltd. vs. ITO (143 ITR 629) concluded that where the relevant material or facts were admittedly already available during original assessment proceedings and there were no new facts or lega....