PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S SURAT NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD,

Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income   Tax   Appellate   Tribunal   dated   13.02.2013 raising following questions for our consideration: “[A]  Whether  on  the  facts  and  circumstance   of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in treating   the reassessment  proceedings  u/s.  147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 of the Act as bad in   law   and   quashing   the   same   without appreciating   the   facts   that   assessee   was   in existence even after issuance of Notice u/s. 148 of the Act and PAN of the assessee is still in existence? [B] Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case   and   in   law,   the   ITAT   is   justified   in deleting   the   addition   of   Rs.5,88,80,038/­ without   appreciating   the   facts   that   the provisions standing in the form of liability are required to be treated instead as income of the assessee as per provisions of Section 41(1) of the I. T. Act?” C/TAXAP/1015/2018 ORDER

First question pertains to the validity of the notice for reopening of the assessment.  The Tribunal invalidated   the   reassessment   on   two   grounds. Firstly, that the respondent­assessee, a cooperative bank has merged with another bank and the notice was served on the nonexistent entity.  The second reason was that there was a scrutiny assessment which the Assessing   Officer   wanted   to   reopen   on   the   same material.     In   other   words,   in   the   opinion   of   the Tribunal,   reopening   would   be   based   on   change   of opinion.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having   perused   the   documents   on   record,   we   see   no reason to interfere. Keeping the question of proper service open, we are convinced that reopening of the assessment was correctly held to be bad in law by the Tribunal.   The   assessee   had   argued   before   the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that there was a full­fledged scrutiny of the return filed, during which, several queries were raised and duly answered by the assessee.   On the same material, the Assessing Officer cannot reexamine the   same   issues.   This   being   the   position,   first C/TAXAP/1015/2018 ORDER question is not required to be considered.

When we upheld the Tribunal's view on invalidity of the reopening proceedings, it is not necessary to go   into   the   contentious   issue   of   deleting   the addition   made   by   the   Assessing   Officer   on   the question of genuineness of the liability.

Our dismissal of the appeal therefore should not be seen as confirming the opinion of the Tribunal in this respect.

In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) ANKIT SHAH