GEETA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-2, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

Appellant by : Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. & Ms. Jahanvi Khanna, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 04.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 04.08.2025 ORDER The Assessee has filed this Appeal against the Order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14.05.2025 relating to assessment year 2016-17 on as many as 4 grounds, however, he has argued only on the following legal issues: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts on law in upholding the action of the AO in framing the impugned assessment order u/s. 147/144B of the Act an hat too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying with the mandatory conditions of Section 147 to 151 of the Act. 1.1 That in any case and in any view of the mate, the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the action of the AO in framing the impugned assessment order u/s. 147/143(3) of the Ac is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 1.2 That reasons recorded are based upon presumption and guess work and these are not more than reason to suspect and thus are not valid in the eyes of law as no belief can be formed on the basis of the reasons recorded. 1.3 That the AO has not recorded any reasons by using his independent application of mind to show that he has a “reason to believe” that the income has escaped assessment and as such the same are not valid in the eyes of law. 1.4 That the reopening is made on the wrong set of facts and as such the reopening done is not valid in the eyes of law as there is no application much less independent application of mind by the AO. 1.5 That the impugned order passed u/s. 147/148 of the Act is bad in law as no new fresh / tangible material has come to the knowledge of the AO. 1.6 That the reopening of the assessment is bad in law for the reason that the sanction granted u/s. 151 of the Act is not valid in the eyes of the law and the same is mechanical and has been done without independent reasoning and application of mind by the sanctioning authority.

and also the submissions made before the authorities below, more particularly that reopening is not based on any new fresh/tangible material that has come to the notice of the AO and merely due to change of opinion. 5.1 Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and submitted that the same does not require any interference, hence, the same may be confirmed.

6. I have heard rival contentions and perused the relevant records. 6.1 It transpires from records, that there is no tangible material, which is a pre-condition, available with the AO to allege the escapement of income, the reopening tantamount to only review of original assessment based on change of opinion which is not permissible u/s 147/148, as per settled law. In the reasons recorded, there is no specific, reliable or relevant 3 information which came to the possession of the AO resulting in any failure on the part of assessee to make a true and full disclosure. There is neither failure on the part of assessee to make true and full disclosure nor there is any new tangible material unearthed by AO other than the documents submitted by the assessee. Neither there is any fresh fact that came to the light which was not previously disclosed by assessee nor there is any material came to the possession of AO which proves any untruthfulness of the facts submitted by the assessee. In my view, there is no failure on the part of assessee. It amounts to change of opinion which does not confer jurisdiction u/s147/148 for reopening completed assessment. 6.2 I find that Full Bench of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 256 ITR 1, has held that mere change of opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen proceedings without anything further. It was held that if the Assessing Officer is allowed to do so, the same would amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi judicial function to take benefit of its wrong. Hence, it is clear that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion. The above said decision was duly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.. In this case the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that after 1st April, 1989 Assessing Officer has power to reopen the assessment u/s. 147 provided that Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and there is tangible material