2019 (3) TMI 1206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dge dated 11.1.2019, dismissing the writ petitions which were filed by the Assessee challenging the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. The reasons for initiation of the said re-assessment proceedings are quoted below for ready reference:- "It is seen the P&L a/c, net profit during the year is Rs. 1162.84 million whereas net profit adopted in the income computation statement is only Rs. 116,27,98,958/-. The difference of Rs. 50,000/- is income escaped assessment. On scrutiny of records, it is revealed that as per Col.17(a) of Form 3CD audit report, capital expenditure debited to P&L a/c is Rs. 14,16,73,150/- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Assessee has approached the Division Bench in this Intra-Court Appeals. 7. The learned counsel for the Assessee Mr.N.V.Balaji submitted that there was lack of jurisdiction with the Assessing Authority to re-open the said Assessment as in the earlier Assessment Years, under section 143(3) of the Act this aspect of the matter about the Development and Testing Charges being claimed as Revenue Expenditure by the Assessee was duly considered by the Assessing Authority wherein the Assessee had supplied the relevant materials and the same came to be allowed as Revenue Expenditure by the Assessing Authority in Assessment under Section 143(3) and therefore, on a change of opinion, the Assessing Authority could not have re-opened the Assessme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Schwing Stetter India (P) Ltd. ((2015) 61 Taxmann.com 19 (Madras). 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we are satisfied that there is no merit in the present writ appeals and the same deserve to be dismissed for the following reasons. Firstly, we may observe that the learned Single Judge was absolutely right in holding that the Assessee, having not raised an objection before the Assessing Authority to the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act, should be deemed to have acquiesced to the same. Nothing prevented the Assessee from raising the objection, which could have been dealt with by the Assessing Authority in accordance w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in its writ jurisdiction, would vary. 11. We are satisfied that in the present case, there was no change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Authority and therefore, the re-opening of the Assessment Order was initiated on valid and reasonable grounds. Even the difference between 'change of opinion' and 'reasons to believe'-the condition precedent for invoking Sections 147 and 148 of the Act is very thin. Even if there is a correct disclosure of the expenditure, it may be, in the opinion of the Assessee, a Revenue Expenditure but, in the opinion of the Assessing Authority, it can be a Capital Expenditure. But, that deserves to be decided on the basis of facts by the higher Appellate Forums and that cannot become th....