TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred to as the 'Act'. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. We note at the outset that Revenue herein is aggrieved against the learned CIT(A)/NFAC's lower appellate findings, quashing the reopening in question itself as follows: "5.1 The submissions of the appellant are considered carefully in the light of facts of the case. In this case pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12, original assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 27.02.2014. The notice u/s 148 proposing reassessment is dated 22.09.2017. Therefore, the reassessment has been opened after expiry of four years form the end of the assessment year in a case where scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) had also been carried out. Such a case would be covered by proviso to section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs. It was not as if in the second round, there was some enabling factor for making the addition which could not have been possible earlier. The mention of failure on the part of the assessee in the reasons recorded appears merely to be an attempt to somehow satisfy the legal requirement for reopening the assessment. All the facts relating to the issue were available with the AO at the time of original assessment, and it is not the case of the AO that anything new had come to the light prompting the AO to invoke the provisions related to section 148. 5.4 The law is very clear that where there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts in a case where reopening has been done after the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment on a mere change of opinion is not permissible and is liable to be quashed. 5.8 It is apparent from the facts of this case that there is change of opinion by the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. In the reasons recorded by the AO while reopening the assessment, there is no reference to any new information being available with the AO which was not in his possession during the first round of assessment. Under such circumstances, the Assessing Officer cannot have any jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment for the year under consideration, more particularly when the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond a period of fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain precondition 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 in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to Section 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt proceedings, while passing the order dated 27.02.2014, the AO limited himself to computing the income under normal provisions of the Act, and did not at all compute the income as per the provisions u/s 115JB. In the reassessment proceedings, the AO went on to compute the income, in addition to normal provisions, u/s 115JB also. This shows that any adjustment u/s 115JB which the AO might have missed out on, in the first round of proceedings, was not due to some failure on the part of the appellant, or nonavailability of some information with the AO (which could have been obtained by him while reopening the assessment), but due to failure of the AO to compute the income u/s 115JB which he should have done while passing the assessment order....