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

Briefly stated facts, are that assessee has filed her return of income at Rs. 5,72,850/- on 16.8.2021 in response to the notice u/s. 148. The reassessment proceedings u/s. 147/144B has been completed on 28.03.2022 at a total reassessed income of Rs. 39,06,960/- by making addition of Rs. 33,34,108/-. 3. Against the aforesaid action of the AO, assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by raising the issues on juri ictional as well as on merits. Ld. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the AO’s action by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, Assessee is in appeal before me. 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR has reiterated the grounds of appeal 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 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 juri iction u/s147/148 for reopening completed assessment. 6.2 I find that Full Bench of the Hon’ble Juri ictional 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 juri iction 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 to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income; mere change of opinion may not per se to be a reason for reopening. 6.3 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedent, as aforesaid, in my considered opinion, the reassessment in the instant case has to be held to be invalid and accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. 7. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner. Order pronounced on 04/08/2025. (MAHAVIR SINGH)