TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1689
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... LW.S 147 dated 30.01.2014 was invalid in the eyes of the law. 2.1 The Id. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment was reopened was a "change of opinion" as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd. (256 lTR 1). 2.2 The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no change of opinion and the assessment was reopened to bring into tax the income escaped as per the stand taken by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order and thus the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd. (Supra) relied upon by the CIT(A) does not apply to the facts of the assessee's case. 2.3 The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that as per the amended provisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10%. According to the AO, since the income has escaped assessment from this point, he issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 28.3.2013. In response to the notice, the assessee vide its letter dated 16.4.2013 stated that return has been filed on 16.4.2013 and asked for reasons and the same were communicated vide letter dated 16.7.2013. A notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 2.7.2013. After hearing the assessee, the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 31.1.2014 determining the total income at Rs. 14,63,24,62,330/- by making certain additions. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) challenging the reopening of the assessment. 4. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the reopening is bad in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould not confer jurisdiction upon Assessing Officer to initiate a proceeding under section 147 - Held yes " Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that reopening is invalid in the eyes of law and quashed the order. Against this, the Revenue is in appeal. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We have gone through the paper book filed by the assessee. It is on record that in the original assessment, the books of account of the assessee was called for verification. By a letter dated 8.9.2010 by the AO, the assessee was asked to explain vide query No.18, which is as follows : "18) explain why the depreciation claimed at the rate of 15% on the water supply and drainage should not be allowed at the rate of 10% under ....