TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), dated 24.02.2016 passed by ACIT - 11(1)(1), Mumbai (in short, "the Ld. AO"). The grounds of appeal are as under: "1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Income tax Dept., National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)-NFAC) erred in upholding the reopening of assessment made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Your appellant submits that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening of the assessment u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law, not justified and the Assessment Order passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 ought to be set-aside. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the basis of 'on change of opinion'. No fresh material was on records for the purpose of reopening. The AO had examined the issue in the original assessment proceedings, and no adverse inference was drawn. Thus, reopening has been done on mere 'change of opinion'. The reassessment proceeding is, therefore, bad in law. In support of the contention, the Appellant has placed reliance on various case laws. 5.1.1. I have considered the submissions made by the Appellant. However, I do not agree with the same. The Appellant has not furnished any documents to show that the AO had examined the issue of taxability of 'Interest income' on accrual basis. In the original assessment proceedings, the AO has simply accept....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as due to him during the relevant year from Mr AL Prasad. The Appellant, however, offered to tax only Rs. 50,00,000/- which was actually received by him. The balance amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was not offered to tax in AY 2007-08. This is not in accordance with mercantile system of accounting. Thus, I hold that the AO has correctly taxed the remaining amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- in AY 2007-08, on accrual basis. Ground is, thus, dismissed." 3. Before us, Ld. AR representing the assessee came up with two-fold contentions. First, that the present assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3), whereas the scrutiny assessment of the assessee was earlier completed u/s 143(3) and the issue has been examined by the Ld. AO. Therefore, there was a ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been declared in A.Y.2007-08 and A.Y.2009-10 therefore, no addition should be made. From the facts of the case, it is clear and there is no ambiguity that the assessee has to show entire interest income in A.Y.2007-08 but it has declared Rs. 50 lacs which means that it has deferred tax liability. In view of these facts, I agree with the comments of the AO that the entire Income of Rs. 1 crore should have been assessed in A.Y.2007-08 only. Since the AO has verified that Rs. 50 lacs has already been assessed in A.Y.2007-08 therefore, she is directed to assess the remaining amount of Rs. 50 lacs of interest income on, accrual basis in A.Y.2007-08 by taking necessary action u/s 147/148 of the I.T. Act. The AO is also directed to verify and r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the orders of revenue authorities. 6. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the finding of ld. CIT(A) for AY 2009-10 had attained finality, once the assessee chooses not to explain the reasons for not considering the accrued income in AY 2007-08. The assessee, rather, never rebutted on this aspect before the revenue authorities below, nor was able to substantiate by way of any corroborative evidence to prove that such income was not accrued in AY 2007-08 on account of any litigation between the parties or for any cogent reason for which it is received in 2009-10 and taxed therein. We find substance and justification in the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order for 2009-10....