TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 993
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... earlier occasions had submitted, reasons to believe reek of change of opinion. Impugned notice is for reassessment relating to assessment year 2010-11. As it is a change of opinion, no allegation of suppression was made, as it could not be made, to invoke extended period of limitation. He relied on following decisions:- i) Judgment of Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC), to paragraph 6 for declaration of law regarding change of opinion. Assessing Officer (AO) was declared to have power to reopen provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion there is escapement of income of assessment. This, Mr. Khaitan submitted, is not available here as full disclosure was made by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income. Re-assessment proceeding must follow. By this writ petition assessee is trying to obstruct the re-assessment, which might even yield nil demand of tax. First proviso to section 147 stands attracted since assessee had not fully or truly disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment in relevant assessment year. Mere production before AO, of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could, with due diligence, have been discovered by AO will not necessarily amount to disclosure within meaning of the proviso as has been said in explanation 1. Reasons to believe for reopening are as in clause (c) of explanation 2. The reasons to believe would appear from extract reproduced below:- "On perusal of ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... distribution of power. This amendment effected from 1st April, 2013 i.e. in relation to A.Y. 2013-14 and subsequent assessment year." Assessment order made under section 143(3) was on 21st March, 2013. Assessee could not have claimed additional depreciation of plant and machinery used for power sector, which benefit became available on amendment, by insertion of clause (iia) in subsection (1) of section 32, effective 1st April, 2013 in relation to assessment years 2013-14 onwards. Assessee availed of additional depreciation on plant and machinery used for generation of power, which could only have been availed by it on and from assessment year 2013-14. Assessee having had claimed this benefit for assessment year 2010-11, same amounted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter. It has however dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction." Secondly, on CIT Gujarat Vs. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani reported in (2013) 14 SCC 661, to paragraphs 12 to 14, of which paragraph 14 is reproduced below:- " 14. In the present case, the assessee has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court at the first instance without first exhausting the alternate remedies provided under the Act. In our considered opinion, at the said stage of proceedings, the High Court ought not have entertained the writ petition and instead should have directed the assessee to file reply to the said notices and upon receipt of a decision from the assessing authority, if for any reason it is aggreived by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dment by Finance Act, 2012 causing insertion in clause (iia) under sub-section (1) in section 32. Explanation was obtained by AO in the assessment made under section 143(3). That is why his client's contention against revenue, of seeking to embark on reassessment on change of opinion had. Court obtained satisfaction from assessee regarding information sought by revenue under cover of letter dated 13th February, 2013, before assessment under section 143(3) was made for assessment year 2010-11. The letter is disclosed at page 196, and serial nos.10 and 12 therein are respectively as follows:- " 10. Please furnish the detail of asset(plant & machinery) its use in your business on which depreciation & 80% in claimed. Why the claim o....