2025 (8) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... loss declared was Rs. 7,80,571/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') by the learned Assessing Officer on 30.12.2016 wherein the return filed by the appellant had been duly accepted by the department. During the year, appellant had paid External Development Charges (EDC) to HUDA without TDS on the assumption that as provisions of non-deduction of tax u/s Section 196 of the Act was applicable to Government and other Authorities and HUDA is a development authority of State Government of Haryana. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 30.03.2021 i.e. at the end of 6th year. In reassessment proceedings AO examined the issue that Ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5 That the assessment order as passed is not sustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. Ld. AR has submitted that in the present case, reassessment proceedings initiated is clearly based on mere change of opinion, which is not permissible in law. The appellant had fully and truly disclosed all the material facts necessary for assessment of income for the year under reference and the same were duly examined by the Assessing Officer. Thus, in the absence of any new/fresh material coming on record in respect of the aforesaid issue, the reassessment proceeding is, it is submitted, nothing but an attempt to reappraise the material already available on record, which is not permissible in law. It is also settled law ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... there was nothing on the part of assessee which was lacking in disclosure in the return of income of assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act as it was only subsequently, the issue about deductibility of TDS was judicially settled in favour of revenue and at the same time the Circular relied by ld. AO for reopening certainly doesn't have retrospective effect as it is settled law that CBDT circulars are binding on the department but cannot override judicial interpretation or cannot be applied retrospectively to completed assessments. Reliance for this can be placed on Suchitra Components Ltd. Vs CCE [2007] 208 ELT 321 (SC) and CIT Vs SIL Investments Ltd. [2011] 9 taxmann.com 143 (Delhi). So reopening is not only bad being illegal exercise....