Delhi HC: Maintenance is Intended to Safeguard Dependent Spouse & Child’s Right to Live With Dignity  ||  Delhi HC: Any Person in India Has the Right to Legally Import Goods from Abroad  ||  Bombay HC: Can’t Quash Rape Cases on the Basis of Compromise  ||  Madras HC: Can’t Tap Individual’s Phone to Uncover Suspected Crime  ||  Karnataka HC: Women Commuters Oppose Ban on Bike Taxis in Karnataka  ||  Delhi HC: Inclusive Education is About Recognising That Every Child Has a Place in Classroom  ||  Delhi HC: Patanjali to Not Run Ads that are Disparaging to Dabur Products  ||  Delhi HC Upholds Rule Restricting Retention of GPRA by Central Armed Police Forces  ||  Delhi HC: Disability Pension Ensures that a Soldier is Not Left Without Support  ||  SC Declines Petition by Lalit Modi against BCCI Seeking Indemnification    

Sasi Enterprises, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (23 Jun 2023)

In the absence of any new tangible material, the case could not be reopened on mere change of opinion

MANU/IX/0253/2023

Direct Taxation

Appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 1997-98 and 2001-02 arises out of the separate orders of learned first appellate authority. The sole substantive ground that falls for consideration is addition of Rs.16.47 Lacs under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act). The assessee is stated to be a partnership firm.

The original return of income was scrutinized under Section 143(3) of IT Act. The case was reopened within 4 years. The perusal of assessment order would show that, AO has not referred to any tangible material coming into his possession which would lead to formation of a belief that certain income escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. Apparently, reassessment has been initiated on the same set of material as available before AO during original assessment proceedings. This being so, the reassessment proceedings would be nothing would review of the order which is impermissible.

The case law of Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. support the case of the assessee wherein it was held that, in the absence of any new tangible material, the case could not be reopened on mere change of opinion. Respectfully following the same, present Tribunal would hold that the reassessment proceedings were nothing but the review exercise undertaken by AO. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and hence quashed. Appeal allowed.

Tags : ADDITION   REASSESSMENT   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved