TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opinion, and has, accordingly, quashed the reassessment order passed against the respondent-assessee. 2. In brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter could be noticed in the following : The respondent-assessee filed the return of income on 31st Oct., 2006 declaring total income of Rs. 87,24,190 for the asst. yr. 2006-07. The order under s. 143(3) was passed by the AO on 19th Dec, 2008 accepting the income as declared. However, the successor AO proceeded to examine the assessment record and purportedly believed that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment or had been under-assessed. The successor AO, therefore, proceeded to issue the notice under s. 148 of the Act while stating as under : "The assessee filed retu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot by seller. These expenses have been wrongly claimed by assessee. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case I have reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment/been under-assessed within the meaning of s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 2006-07, for which proceedings under s. 147 are initiated. Notice under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, issued today." 3. The assessee objected to the proceedings for reopening of the assessment but the objections were rejected. Thereafter, the AO observed that under the Act, only that much of the expenditures could be allowed against business receipts which were actually incurred during the year; and that only a sum of Rs. 52,35,400 was actually inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Rs. 35 lakhs was taken to the balance-sheet as provisions for project development, were available before the AO at the time of framing the original assessment order. The fact regarding debiting, registration and stamp charges on sale of plot, in P&L a/c was also available and considered by the AO originally. On the basis of the same facts and figures which were considered and one possible view has been taken the same AO or his successor AO cannot take a different view as it would amount to a change in opinion which is not permitted in law even after 1st April, 1989 and even after considering the decisions of Hon'ble apex Court rendered in this regard. In our considered opinion the primary facts necessary for the assessee were fully a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Guj.) and Gruh Finance Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 482 (Guj.). 7. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the record, we are clearly of the view that no substantial question of law is involved; and this appeal does not merit admission. 8. The decisions as referred by the learned counsel for the appellant had been essentially of the matters pertaining to the petitions filed at the stage of notices issued to the concerned assessees for reassessment proceedings. In the ease of Gruh Finance Ltd. (supra), the assessee was found having claimed depreciation on non-existent machinery which was allowed in original assessment without consciously examining the scheme. In Praful Chunilal Patel (supra)....