AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 29.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.17.01.2014 determining the total income at Rs. 81,861/-. Subsequently, the case was re-opened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2016 which was served on the assessee on 30.03.2016. Thereafter, the case was taken up for scrutiny and consequently assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the Act dated 06.12.2016 whereby the total income was determined at Rs. 24,56,700/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.05.03.2019 (in appeal No.Nsk/CIT(A)-2/445/2016-17) dismissed the appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... value of the property at Rs. 8,13,286/- and thus according to the AO, the difference of Rs. 62,86,714/- (Rs. 71,00,000/- - Rs. 8,13,286/-) was the profits earned by the assessee on sale of plots. It was noticed that in the trading account, gross profit was shown as Rs. 39,11,873/-. The AO was therefore of the view that the difference of Rs. 23,74,841/- had escaped from assessment and accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the details which were furnished by the assessee but the same was not found acceptable to the AO. Accordingly, AO treated Rs. 23,74,841/- as income from sale of land and made its addition. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the change of opinion cannot constitute a reason for re-opening of the completed assessment. He therefore submitted that the order of AO be set aside. Ld. D.R. on the other hand, supported the order of lower authorities. 6. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Assessee in the present ground is challenging the re-opening of the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that assessee had filed original return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 29.09.2011 and the original assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x has escaped the assessment. The requirement of failure to make true and full disclosure as provided in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act is not to be satisfied for issuing of re-opening notice within the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, in the absence of cumulative satisfaction of reason to believe and in the absence of any income chargeable to tax escaping assessment, the Assessing Officer is not empowered with jurisdiction to reopen an assessment. 8. In the present case, it is also a fact that original assessment for the year under consideration was framed under section 143(3) of the Act. In such a situation, another aspect that has to be kept in mind is as to whether the reopening is based ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review ; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain preconditions and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an inbuilt test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided ther....