TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1404
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as failed to appreciate that there was material on record to show that there had been any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant to the computation of income for the assessment year under consideration. The finding that that reopening done by the AO is in accordance with criteria laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court is devoid of any merit and is thus unsustainable. 1.2 That the ld. C.I.T.(Appeals) has further failed to appreciate that the AO has not disposed off all the objections raised by the assessee to the initiation of reassessment proceedings and as such the assessment as framed was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 1.3 That the ld. C.I.T.(Appeals) has grossly ignored the fact that in the original return of income, the assessee had declared long term capital gain on sale of property No. 0-828, 2nd Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, deduction u/s. 54EC and set off of brought forward losses against long term capital gains had been settled by the ld. C.I.T.(Appeals), which order was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Income Fax Appellate Tribunal and as such the re-assessment as framed is only change of opinion. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also duly complied with vide AO's letter dated 24.1.2013. In response to statutory notice, Ld. Authorized Representative of the Assessee filed letter dated 6.2.2013 in DAK and the same was perused by the AO. AO observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property No. D-828, 2nd floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi on 21.2.2005 for a consideration of Rs. 80 lacs. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 54EC in respect of investment made in specified bonds of NHB on 27.8.2005. AO observed that on plain reading of the section 54EC(1) it reveals that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of the investment made after a period of six months from the date of such transfer. In the instant case the date of such transfer is 21.2.2005. As per the certificate issued by National Housing Bank on 7.10.2005, the date of allotment is 27.8.2005, however it has been claimed by the assessee that the investment has been made vide cheque dated 18.8.2005. AO further observed that on perusal of the statement of the assessee reveals that the said cheque was debited from its account on 26.8.2005. Therefore, neither the payment has been made nor the allotment of bonds has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt is devoid of any merit and is thus unsustainable. He further stated that the reasons recorded as referred to the record that were already available at the time of original assessment. Hence, no fresh or tangible material came into the hands of the AO when reasons were recorded and it is a case of change of opinion, which is not permissible, in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), therefore, he requested that the orders of the authorities below be set aside and the reassessment proceedings as initiated be held as illegal and the same may be quashed. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that lower authorities have passed a well reasoned order on the basis of the documentary evidences filed by the assessee as well as prevailing law. He further stated that Notice u/s. 148 has been issued after adopting the prescribed procedure under the law and with tangible material. Therefore, he stated that the question of quashing the reassessment does not arise. Accordingly, he requested that the Appeal filed by the Assessee may be dismissed. 7. We h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment. We note that the AO in the reasons recorded has referred to the record which were already available at the time of original assessment. No fresh or tangible material came into the hands of the AO when reasons were recorded. In the circumstances, the reopening was sought to be made only to review the original assessment which was actuated by Change of opinion by the AO, which is clearly impermissible in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case has analyzed in detail the provisions of section 147 of the IT Act and held as under:-- "After the Amending Act, 1989, Section 147 reads as under: "Income escaping assessment - 147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss ....