TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 924
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt year 2006-07 on 29.11.2006, declaring total income of Rs. 12,70,390/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 16.09.2011 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 22,00,000 and determined the total income at Rs. 33,44,590. 3. Facts of the case are that the assessee company was deriving income from medical and diagnostic services and it filed its return of income for the current assessment year on 29.11.2006. After processing, the case was converted into scrutiny and assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was completed on 28.03.2008. The case was reopened to verify whether expenditure on replacement of picture tube in CT scanner was capital expenditure or a revenue ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....different issue i.e., whether the expenditure on replacement of tube of the scanner is capital or revenue in nature. It does not go into the issue of reopening of assessment at all. The CIT(A) observed that in the current year the scanner has been replaced as per the assessment order. 6. The CIT(A) further observed that the assessment year in question is 2006-07 and this assessment year ends on 31.03.2007. The proviso referred to by the assessee comes into play after a period of four years from the end of the assessment year has expired. In this case that period expires on 31.03.2011. The notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2011 as per para 2 of the assessment order and at this point of time the period of four years had not expired. Accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'change of mind' on the same issue which action is unlawful. 4. The assessment was reopened after 4 years, as the notice dated 30-03-2011 was served after 1-04-2011. 5. On the above and other grounds that may arise during the appeal, the assessee requests for an order directing the allowance of the claimed expenditure in full, or/and holding the re-opening as invalid. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and the learned DR on the other hand, stated that the CIT(A)'s order is to be confirmed. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted before us that in the case of Agriculture Produce Market Committee vs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e re-assessment proceedings. The Tribunal has held as follows: "Moreover, the coordinate bench in the case of S. Ranjit Reddy and others in ITA No. 292/ Hyd/2012 and others observed as follows: "Now, undoubtedly an order of the assessment which has been passed in subsequent assessment year may furnish a foundation to reopen an assessment for an earlier assessment year. However, there must be some new facts which come to light in the course of assessment for the subsequent assessment year which emerge in the order of the assessment. Otherwise, a mere change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment for a subsequent assessment year would not by itself legitimise reo....