TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment year 2011 - 2012. 2. The tax case appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : "i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in remitting the matter back to the file of the Commissioner for consideration on merits alone without adjudicating upon the specific grounds on the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ii. Whether the Tribunal was right in not taking cognizance of the fact that reassessment was based on change of opinion sans any fresh tangible material? iii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not holding that the reassessment was invalid in v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 21.10.2014. The assessee's case was that the reopening is not valid in law as it is a clear case of change of opinion. The contention advanced by the assessee was not accepted and the reassessment proceedings were completed on 30.03.2016 determining the total taxable income as Rs. 54,43,060/-. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 13, Chennai. 5. The assessee contended that mere audit objection could not form basis to reopen the completed assessment and refered to the decision in the case of Smt.Shalu Sachdeva Vs. ACIT (2015) Taxmann.com and CIT Vs. Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation (2000) 242 ITR 119). Further It was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer on the issue of addition of Rs. 1,51,79,950/-. Accordingly, confirmed the addition. The net result being the appeal dismissed in toto. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal raising all the issues and the Tribunal remanded the matter to CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits. 8. So far as the validity of the reopening is concerned, we find that the Tribunal did not render any specific finding. After carefully going through the impugned order, we find that the Tribunal ought to have adjudicated all the grounds raised by the assessee that is whether the reopening is valid in law and whether there were materials in the hands of the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. So the assessee is right in contending....