2019 (1) TMI 120

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) were invalid. The remaining questions raised by the Revenue are on merits because the Tribunal after coming to the conclusion that the reassessment was invalid, proceeded to examine the issues on merits and gave its opinion thereon. For the purpose of this tax appeal, we consider only the question of validity of the reassessment proceedings. In this context, the Revenue has presented following question for our consideration : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act is unsustainable in law?" 3. This issue pertains to Assessment Year 2008-09. The respondent assessee is a company registered under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fresh order of assessment. CIT(A) also rejected the assessee's contention in this regard, upon which the issue reached the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the issue was examined by the Assessing Officer during the original scrutiny assessment. There was no new material available with the Assessing Officer. Any attempt on his part to reopen the assessment would, therefore, be on the basis of change of opinion. In the process, the Tribunal took note of the detailed scrutiny that the Assessing Officer had carried out during the original assessment. The Tribunal reproduced questions nos. (5) and (11), raised by the Assessing Officer during the regular assessment. Question no.(5) called upon the assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the original scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal correctly noted that the Assessing Officer had raised relevant queries and elicited response from the assessee. The fact that the Assessing Officer did not make any disallowance, would be of importance. In our opinion, the Tribunal correctly came to the conclusion that in absence of any new tangible material, which was not on record during the original assessment proceedings, any attempt on the part of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment on this ground would be based on a mere change of opinion. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 has held that even post the amendments in Section 147 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04....