TaxTMI 
2026 (11) TMI 464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.12.2019 by accepting the returned income. The case has been, subsequently reopened under Section 147 of the Act, for the reasons recorded, as per which income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of excess deduction claimed towards temporary registration charges, service charges and documentation charges, and accordingly notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 31.03.2021 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee had filed return of income on 10.01.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 53,01,210/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of reassessment proceedings, the A.O. called upon the assessee to file relevant details of expenditure claimed under the head temporary registration charges and documentation charges. In response, the assessee filed relevant details and claimed that, he had incurred expenditure for temporary registration of vehicles and documentation charges and the same had been debited to profit and loss account. 3. The A.O., after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of relevant expenditure, observed that, the assessee ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion and documentation charges is contrary to the trade practices and, therefore, cannot be accepted. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri P. V. Raghavendra Kumar, C.A., referring to the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment, submitted that, it is a classic case of change of opinion without there being any fresh tangible material coming to the possession of the A.O. subsequent to the completion of original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act, which is evident from relevant reasons recorded by the A.O., where the A.O. refers to assessment records and the information submitted by the assessee in response to the notice issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, and from the above, it is very clear that, the reopening of the assessment is on the very same set of facts and materials and not based on any fresh tangible material. Therefore, reopening of the assessment is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Kamaluddin Hamed Salmani vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1284/Hyd/2025....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of the assessment in the present facts of the case is merely a case of change of opinion, without there being any fresh tangible material for the purpose of reopening of the assessment. 9. It is a well-established principle of law by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), wherein it has been clearly held that the power to reopen an assessment cannot be exercised merely to review an assessment in the absence of fresh tangible material. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2023) 457 ITR 647 (Bombay), wherein it has been clearly held that the power to reassess cannot be exercised to review an assessment unless the reassessment is based on fresh tangible material. The assessee has also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Kamaluddin Hamed Salmani Vs. DCIT (supra), wherein under identical set of facts, the Tribunal has held as under: "8. We have heard the rival contentions, considered the material on record and also gone through the orders of authorities below. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orded for reopening of assessment on the basis of very same material which were available in the assessment records while completing the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Further, if we go through the relevant record including computation of total income, it is very clear that the assessee has disclosed the relevant facts with regard to sale of property and consideration received for sale of property in the statement of total income indicating the amount of LTCG and deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that from our above observations, it is undisputedly clear that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on ' mere change ' of opinion without there being fresh tangible material which came to the possession of the Assessing Kamaluddin Hamed Salmani Officer subsequent to completion of original assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. In the absence of any fresh tangible material, reopening, amounts to 'change of opinion' which is not permissible under the law. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer does not have any power to review his own assessment. Further, if during the original assessment, the assessee h....