TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 855
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and since no new fact has come to the knowledge the Assessing Officer and it is a clear case of change of opinion making the Reassessment invalid. 3) Your Appellant also submits that the order that u/s. 148 is bad in law and void since the order of Assessing Officer sought to be Reopened has merged with the order of CIT(A) and it does not existence and therefore the vary basis of Notice of Reopening and Reassessment thereafter is vitiated and against principle of natural justice. On Merits 1) On facts of the case your Appellant submits that the Bombay Flat was 87,520/-occasionally occupied put to use by the Appellant or his relatives and friends as and when they went to Bombay for Social or Business reasons and therefore deeming provisions and estimating the income as Rent of Rs. 1,56,970/- is against principle law and natural justice. 2) Without prejudice to above your Appellant submits that the figure of Notional Rent estimated by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) is on evidence collected at the back of your Appellant and its reliance in Asst. Order without giving a copy of said letter of Society and without giving a chance to your Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The appellant has contested on five grounds. The effective ground is reopening of assessment is bad in law and addition of Rs. 1,56,8007- under the head House Property. I have gone through the submission made before AO, assessment order and reason of reopening i.e. escapement of deemed income on house / flat at Mumbai. The appellant states that flat was self occupied during 01.04.2010 to 21.12.2010. In support, he has produced bills paid to the Milton Co-operative Society. I find that appellant has not denied rent receipt for prior F.Y. i.e. before 01.04.2009 -31.03.2010. Further, appellant has also not denied his residence at Vadodara. Appellant has vehemently argued that he was staying at flat to negotiate selling price at a higher rate. This argument is quite stressed. No human being would live in a flat to enhance sale price that also for the period of nine months i.e. 01.04.2010 -21.12.2010. 5.2 Appellant has mentioned his Vadodara address in all bank account record, Sale deed, Assessment proceedings correspondence, Appeal memo and even ITR history suggests Vadodara address. Appellant is partner in two firms namely Avni Developers and Mehta Builders both having busine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the above property, since this would amount to "change of opinion", which is impermissible in law. The counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee has other properties situated in Vadodara on which he is declaring rental income. On facts, the aforementioned property was in self-occupation of the assessee since assessee had to make frequent travels to Mumbai on account of business travels. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has a choice of taking one property in self-occupied and in respect of other properties he had declared rental income of the same. The Counsel for the assessee further submitted that earlier for assessment year 2008-09, the assessee had declared rental income in respect of the aforementioned property. In response, the Ld. DR relied upon the observations made in the assessment order. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We note that during the course of original assessment proceedings, all facts in connection with the aforementioned property were placed before the AO for his consideration. In the original return of income, the assessee had not declared long-term capital gain in respe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngaged in business of manufacturing and export of garments, towards sales commission were huge, since said reason for reopening was based on same set of information which was available at time of original assessment proceedings, reopening of assessment based on a mere change of opinion was invalid and not permissible. 5.3 In the case of Dell India (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT [2021] 123 taxmann.com 468 (Karnataka), the High Court held that oversight, inadvertence or mistake of Assessing Officer or error discovered by him on reconsideration of same material is mere change of opinion and does not give him power to reopen a concluded assessment. 5.4 In the case of Jivraj Tea Co. v. DCIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 539 (Gujarat)Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that where issue with respect to purchases made from sister concerns and price paid to them was in fact gone into in detail by Assessing Officer during course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, subsequent reopening on very ground could be said to be a mere change of opinion by subsequent Assessing Officer which was not permissible. 5.5 We observe that property in question which was situated at Milton Apartments Mumbai was rented upto....