TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the assessment under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 7^th December, 1995. Subsequently, he sought to reopen the assessment by issuing a notice dated 30^th March, 2000 under Section 148 of the Act. The reason for reopening the completed assessment was to tax the waiver of interest allegedly not offered to tax by the Assessee. 4. It appears that the Assessee was facing some financial problems and, therefore, it had taken term loans from some banks and financial institutions. The Assessee was unable to pay interest on these loans either to the banks or to the financial institutions. Since the Assessee did not pay any interest to the banks and financial institutions, it did not claim any expend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had not fully and truly disclosed all material facts. In support of this submission, the Assessee pointed out that in the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had sent a questionnaire to which the Assessee had responded by a letter dated 8^th November, 1995. In that letter, the Assessee had clearly pointed out that it had approached the banks and financial institutions for fresh loans to repay the arrears of interest and principal. The banks and financial institutions had agreed to the same and the principal and interest thereon were re-scheduled and the interest arrears were funded and treated as a fresh interest bearing loan. It was submitted that as such the entire arrears of interest upto the relevant previous y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment. In other words, the Tribunal was of the view that the case was really one of change of opinion. 11. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, v. Asst. CIT(2006) 281 ITR 394, wherein a Division Bench of this Court considered the case law and came to the conclusion that in principle a mere change of opinion would be applicable only to a situation where the Assessing Officer had taken a conscious decision on the matter in issue. It was held that it would have no application where the assessment order does not record a finding on the aspect which formed the basis for reopening the assessment. 12. In response, learned counsel for the Assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High Court. 14. Subsequently, a similar issue came up before another Division Bench of this Court in KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Assistant Director of Income Tax, [2007] 208 CTR (Delhi) 33. The Division Bench noted the conflict between the decision of the Full Bench and the Division Bench of this Court and quite naturally concluded that since the view expressed by the Division Bench cannot be reconciled with the view of the Full Bench, it must be held that the Division Bench did not lay down the correct law. Following the view expressed in KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, we are of the view that it would not be correct on our part to overlook the decision of the Full Bench in Kelvinator of India Ltd. and rely upon the decision of the Division B....