TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short], the assessee also agitated against confirmation of addition made towards provision for doubtful debts as well as confirmation of disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation. 2. In the grounds of appeal, the first solitary ground raised by the assessee is with regard to reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. We find that the assessee has not challenged the above issue before the ld. CIT(A) during appellate proceedings. Being a legal issue even though raised for the first time before the Tribunal, we have decided to adjudicate the issue on merits by considering the materials available on record and hearing to the ld. DR since none appeared on behalf of the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med deduction of Rs..1,14,96,325/- as unabsorbed depreciation loss of assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-02. As per the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Special Bench in the case of DCIT v. Times Guaranty in I.T.A. Nos. 4917 & 4918/Mum/2008 dated 30.06.2010, the unabsorbed depreciation of assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02 is not eligible for relief granted by amendment to section 32(2) in assessment year 2002-03. Therefore, the Assessing Officer noticed that an income amounting to Rs..2,03,92,089/- has escaped assessment in the assessment year 2010-11. Accordingly, by recording the reasons for escapement of income under section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act for reopening of assessment within t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gard to proposition (2) afore-stated by the Hon'ble Court by its larger Bench in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) in-as-much as the same also allowed reassessment in case of change of opinion, which, clearly, could not be as the Assessing Officer has no power to review his order. The Apex Court, per its larger bench decision in A.L.A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC), again reviewed the matter and clarified that the proposition (2) in Kalyanji Mavji & Co's case (supra) was indeed widely expressed, as it would also include cases in which the Income Tax Officer, having considered all the facts and law, arrived at a particular conclusion, yet initiates proceedings on a reappraisal of the same material which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not been considered by him, at least in its relevant part. The issue of consideration of an aspect of the matter and formation of opinion in its respect, it may be appreciated, is essentially a matter of fact, the law only barring a change of opinion. Where, therefore, there is a live and clear nexus between the said information and the reasons to believe escapement of income, formed on that basis, the assumption of jurisdiction to reassess cannot be called into question as was sought to be canvassed before us. Thus, we hold that the entire reassessment in this case is valid and therefore, the reopening of assessment is upheld. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 5. With regard to the ground relating to allowability of ....