TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 892
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f real estate. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 31.10.2007, declaring total income of Rs. 1,51,48,790. In the assessment originally completed under S.143(3) vide order dated 27.7.2009, the total income as declared by the assessee in the return was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer by issuing a notice under S.148 on 22.3.2012, after recording the following reasons- "On verification of the records, it was seen that the assessee had purchased the immovable property consisting of semi-finished commercial complex named as 'OZONE'. This property consists of cellar + ground and four floors with a built up area of 58,179 Sq. Ft., alo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 making therein, an addition of Rs. 4,96,74,352 to the total income of the assessee on account of alleged under valuation of closing stock. 4. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under S.143(3) read with S.147, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the learned CIT(A), challenging the validity of the said assessment as well as disputing the addition made therein on account of alleged under valuation of closing stock on merit. As regards the preliminary issue regarding relating to the validity of the reopening, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings had raised a specific query regarding the basis of the cost r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the learned CIT(A) that the issue having been duly examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings, the subsequent issue of notice under S.148 reopening the assessment on the same issue was based on a mere change of opinion, which was not permissible. 5. The learned CIT(A) found merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee and keeping in view the valuation report furnished by the assessee as well as the letters sent by the Assessing Officer to the audit team as well as to the Additional CIT, she held that the reopening of assessment itself was not valid as the same was based on a mere change of opinion. Accordingly, the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under S.143(3) read with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation of mind. He contended that there was thus no formation of any opinion by the Assessing Officer on this issue and the question of reopening of assessment based on mere change of opinion does not arise. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, invited our attention to the copy of the relevant order sheet placed at page 11 and 12 of his paper-book, to point out that copy of the relevant agreement for sale of portion of the property was specifically called for by the Assessing Officer, and the same was also duly furnished by the assessee. He submitted that even all other details and documents required by the Assessing Officer were furnished by the Assessing Officer from time to time, including the valuation report giv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ken by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment while accepting the said valuation was not a possible view. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the assessee during the year under consideration purchased one property situated at Panjagutta, Hyderabad for Rs. 13.13 cores and sold a portion of the said property, i.e. ground floor for consideration of Rs. 11 crores. The cost of the portion of the said property sold during the year under consideration was taken by the assessee as Rs. 7.6 crores, on the basis of a valuation report and the balance amount of Rs. 5.53 crores being cost of the remaining portion of the property continued to be held by the assessee was s....