Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Manunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma
Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ajit Kumar Minda.......................................................................……….…Cross-Objector Room No.28, 5th Floor Model house, 40, Strand Road, Kol-1.. [PAN: AEKPM8929A] vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata …………………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the revenue. Shri S. Jhajharia and Sujoy Sen, AR, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Date of concluding the hearing : September 15, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : September 17, 2025 ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This is an appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] dated 01.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for AY 2015-16.
At the outset, we note that there is a delay in filing of the appeal by 149 days by the Revenue, for which, condonation petition has been filed. After hearing both the parties and perusing the contents of the condonation application filed by the Revenue, we are of the view that the C.O No.50/Kol/2025 Ajit Kumar Minda reasons are bona fide and genuine. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
First take up the Revenue’s appeal in . Brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and filed original return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs.9,28,670/- having salary income, capital gains and income from other sources. The assessment in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 was passed u/s 143(3) as complete scrutiny vide assessment order dated 20.04.2017 by discussing all issues. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee did not file his return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the assessee filed objection regarding the reopening of the assessee which was disposed of by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act however, the assessee did not reply to the said notice and the Assessing Officer observed that there were a huge share price movement Greencrest Financial Services Ltd. and the assessee was asked to produce details of the share prices and sale during the assessment year under consideration. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee by making an addition of Rs.61,74,550/- as alleged bogus LTCG claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Similarly, addition of Rs.1,23,491/- was added to the income of the assessee as commission paid to entry operators u/s 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure.
Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was allowed by the ld. CIT(A) by setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer observing as follows: “7. DECISION:
C.O No.50/Kol/2025 Ajit Kumar Minda 7.1 Additional Ground Nos.1 and 2 relate to initiation of proceedings u/s.147/148 of the Act. 7.2 Before venturing into adjudication on merits of the case, it is imperative todiscuss the legal issue raised by the appellant that the initiation of proceeding u/s.148 of the Act is void-ab-initio since the case was opened merely on change of opinion. 7.3. In the instant case, the case of the appellant was originally selected for scrutiny under CASS for the impugned AY 2015-16, wherein the issue of LTCG deduction u/s. 10(38) of the Act was under consideration before the AO. Accordingly, vide order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 20.04.2017, the AO had considered the submissions made by the appellant with regard to LTCG claim u/s. 10(38) of the IT Act and no addition was made on this account in assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. 7.4 Subsequently, the case of the appellant was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act for the impugned AY 2015-16, since the information available with the AO that the appellant dealt in penny stock M/s. Greencast Financial Services Ltd. Accordingly the AO had issued a notice u/s.148 of the Act. In response thereto, the appellant had filed objection against the issue of statutory notice u/s.148 of the Act. 7.5. Even otherwise, it is pertinent to note that the provisions of sec.147 of the Act can be applied wherein in the original assessment the income liable to tax has escaped assessment due to oversight, inadvertence or a mistake committed by the AO based on the principle that the taxpayer would not be allowed to take advantage of an oversight or mistake committed by the taxing authority. Further, it is settled principle of law that “change of opinion” is not permissible under the garb of reopening under section 147/148 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) held that there is a difference between power to review and power to re-assess under section 147 of the Act and that AO had no power to review and that if the concept of “change of opinion” was removed then in the garb of reopening of assessment review would take place. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted for ready perusal as under: "... . The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain precondition and if the concept of "change of opinion” is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion” as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1-4-1989. Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is "tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.” 7.6. Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Mobis India Ltd v. DCIT [2022] 145 taxmann.com 131 (Madras)/[2023] 450 ITR 60 has relied on variousApex Court decisions and had made an observation that it is trite law that the power to assess the escaped income under Section 3 C.O No.50/Kol/2025 Ajit Kumar Minda 147 of the Act though stands broadened/expanded over the years through periodical amendments, one feature which has remained constant/unchanged and prevailed during the relevant assessment year is the limitation on the power to reassess on a mere change of opinion. The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted below for ready reference.
It is trite law that the power to assess the escaped income under Section 147 though stands broadened/expanded over the years through periodical amendments, one feature which has remained constant/unchanged and prevailed during the relevant assessment year is the limitation on the power to reassess on a mere change of opinion. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the judgment of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC), wherein, after setting out the legislative history and capturing the changes brought out periodically to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, found that the powers are much wider under Section 147 in view of the amendments. However, it was made clear that the power of reassessment is not meant to be a power of review nor can assessments be reopened on mere change of opinion lest Section 147 become vulnerable to challenge as conferring arbitrary power to the Assessing Officer. It was further clarified that the concept of change of opinion as a limitation ought to be understood as an inbuilt test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. It is thus clear that the power of reassessment ought to be exercised only if there is tangible material which warrants exercise of the power of reassessment. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the following paras of the above said judgment. "On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re- opening could be done under above two conditions and fulfilment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back assessment, but in section 147 of the Act [with effect from 1st April, 1989], they are given a go-by and only one condition has remained, viz., that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re- open the assessment. Therefore, post- 1st April, 1989, power to re-open is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to re-open. We must also keepin mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re- assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess. But re¬assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre- condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to Section 147 4 C.O No.50/Kol/2025 Ajit Kumar Minda of the Act, as quoted hereinabove. Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not only deleted the words "reason to believe" but also inserted the word "opinion" in Section 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the Companies against omission of the words "reason to believe", Parliament reintroduced the said expression and deleted the word "opinion" on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer. We quote hereinbelow the relevant portion of Circular No.549 dated 31st October, 1989, which reads as follows: "7.2 Amendment made by the Amending Act, 1989, to reintroduce the expression 'reason to believe' in Section 147. A number of representations were received against the omission of the words 'reason to believe' from Section 147 and their substitution by the 'opinion' of the Assessing Officer. It was pointed out that the meaning of the expression, 'reason to believe' had been explained in a number of court rulings in the past and was well settled and its omission from section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989, has again amended section 147 to reintroduce the expression 'has reason to believe' in place of the words 'for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion'. Other provisions of the new section 147, however, remain the same." [Emphasis supplied] The above view of the Supreme Court has been reiterated repeatedly and it has been held consistently that reassessment cannot be made on mere change of opinion. Some of the judgments which are relevant are referred to herein: CIT v. Techspan India (P) Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 685 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 435 at page 690 “19. The fact in controversy in this case is with regard to the deduction under Section 10-A of the IT Act which was allegedly allowed in excess. The show-cause notice dated 10-2-2005 reflects the ground for reassessment in the present case, that is, the deduction allowed in excess under Section 10- A and, therefore, the income has escaped assessment to the tune of Rs 57,36,811. In the order in question dated 17-8-2005, Even the said showcause notice suggested how proportional allocation should be done. All these things leads to an unavoidable conclusion that the question as to how and to what extent deduction should be allowed under Section 10-A of the IT Act was well considered in the original assessment proceedings itself. Hence, initiation of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148 merely because of the fact that now the assessing officer is of the view that the deduction under Section 10-A was allowed in excess, was based on nothing but a change of opinion on the same facts and circumstances which were already in his knowledge even during the original assessment proceedings." (Emphasis Supplied) B. Woodward Governor India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6632 at page 51,52: “2…….It is urged that the two heads of income sought to be passed off as deductions and clubbed with the receipts that are legitimately admissible 5 C.O No.50/Kol/2025 Ajit Kumar Minda under section 80-IA, are contrary to the declaration of law by the Supreme Court in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT,[2003] 262 ITR 278 (SC) and Liberty India v. CIT,[2009] 317 ITR 218 (SC)…… 4. It is evident from a plain reading of the reasons furnished by the Revenue that there is no allusion to tangible material in the form of objective documents, information etc., outside of the concluded assessment and the documents pertaining to it. According to the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), sans such documents, evidence or tangible material, there cannot be valid opinion leading to proper reassessment proceedings. ( Emphasis Supplied ) C. Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd. v. Income Tax, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3856: "6. Thus, according to the AO, income is stated to have escaped assessment on four counts. The first being on account of depreciation claimed on computer software. In this respect, it is noted that the returns furnished by the assessee had been duly scrutinized by the AO. Undeniably, the amount of depreciation claimed by the assessee was examined by the AO. This is also apparent from the fact that the AO had disallowed depreciation to the extent of Rs. 5,85,078/-, which was claimed by the assessee in respect of the building and warehouse. The AO has now alleged that the depreciation on computer software was to be allowed only to the extent of 25% instead of 60% as admitted earlier. Be that as it may, it is apparent that the dispute raised with regard to rate of depreciation by the AO merely indicates a change of opinion and there has been no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material fact in this regard. 10 It is now well settled that assessment cannot be reopened on mere change of opinion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Limited: (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) affirmed the decision of the full Bench of this Court that a mere change of opinion cannot form the basis for reopening of assessment The Assessing Officer after having resisted the audit wing report/point, stating that there is no material much less tangible material for reassessment and secondly that the claim of depreciation was examined closely and allowed after appreciation of law and also making it clear that reassessment/revisit on the above issue would fall within the realm of change of opinion, the action of the assessing officer in proceeding to make the reassessment is thus unsustainable. [Emphasis supplied] 7.7. The judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant has been perused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kalpataru Land (P.) Ltd, wherein it was held that it is not permissible for an Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment based on the very same material with a view to take another view without consideration of material on record one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer. It is also not permissible to reopen purely on change of opinion. Also, in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 12(3)(2) v. Marico Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of the Hon’ble High Court 6 C.O No.50/Kol/2025 Ajit Kumar Minda of Bombay, wherein the impugned notice of re-opening initiated on mere change of opinion was quashed. 7.8. Observations in the above judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Courts & High Courts have a bearing in deciding the issue of re-opening of the case. The undisputable facts of the instant case are that the AO has already allowed LTCG claimed u/s. 10(38) of the IT Act in original assessment proceedings. So, when the AO has not laid his hands on any new material post original assessment proceedings, reopening is nothing but change of opinion. It may be taken as well settled law that without any information, a mere change of opinion by the AO would not entitle him to re-open the assessment under Sec.147 of the Act. 7.9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that since there is no material alien to the record which the AO has referred to for issuing the impugned notice u/s.148 of the Act; the instant case doesn’t fall in the category of oversight, inadvertence or a mistake committed by the AO; instead it becomes a change of opinion. Therefore, the re-opening of the case of the appellant is change of opinion and hence, bad in law. Hence, additional grounds raised
in this regard are allowed. Further, the case is also decided on merits.
8. Original Ground No. 1 is relates to bogus LTCG claimed u/s. 10(38) and addition of Rs. 61,74,550/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the appellant engaged in the business of sale and purchase of shares in M/s. Greencast Financial Services Ltd. Further, the appellant claimed LTCG u/s. 10(38) of IT Act of Rs. 61,74,550/-. 8.1 The AO observed that the appellant had purchased the share through off market and the payment made by Cheque. As per the data of BSE for Greencast Financial Service Ltd., the share prices of Rs. 7.26 to 264.3 in one year. Therefore, the AO clearly stated that its modus operandi case and the capital gain through penny Stock. 8.2 The appellant Shri Ajit Kumar Minda has derived a LTCG of Rs. 60,53,155/- from its investments in the shares of M/s. Greencast Financial Services Ltd. It was also observed that the appellant has purchased 10,000 equity shares of Rs. 1,00,000/- of M/s Marrigold Glass Industries Ltd. during the FY 2012-13. Later on, the Marrigold Glass Industries Ltd had changed his name to M/s. Greencast Financial Service Ltd. The same was sold in the concerned FY 2014-15 for Rs. 61,53,820/- through the registered share broker of M/s. Steel City Securities Ltd and thus resulting in a Long Term Capital Gain(LTCG) of Rs. 60,53,155/-. 8.3 During the appellant proceedings, the appellant had submitted the copy of bank statement reflecting payment made for purchase of shares, copy of letter from M/s. Greencast Financial Services Ltd for sub division in face value of shares, copy of share certificate of M/s. Marrigold Glass industries Ltd duly issued in the name of theappellant, copy of contract note of sale of shares, copy of bank passbook reflecting receipt of sale consideration of shares of M/s. Greencast Financial Services Ltd. 7 C.O No.50/Kol/2025 Ajit Kumar Minda 8.4 In the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted various documentary evidences in support of the claim to prove the genuineness of the transaction relating to LTCG of M/s. Greencast Financial Services Ltd:
1. 1. Share Certificate of 10,000 equity shares of M/s. Marrigold Glass Industries Ltd. Bank statement showing payment of the purchase consideration of shares ofM/s. Marrigold Glass Industries Ltd.
2. Balance Sheet of the appellant for the F.Y. 2012-13 to show that the investment in the shares was duly disclosed.
3. Copy of Contract notes for sale of shares through M/s Steel City Securities Ltd. Bank statement showing receipt of sale consideration by cheque. 8.5 Further, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, A-Bench, Kolkata in the case of Maniesh Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid for the AY 2014-15 in stated that: “We have heard both the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find lot of force in the arguments of the Id AR that the id AO was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee. on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances, human conduct, and preponderance of probability without bringing on record any legal evidence against the assessee. We rely on the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. (supra) for this proposition, the various facets of the arguments of the Id AR supra, with regard to impleading the assessee for drawing adverse inferences which remain unproved based on the evidences available on record, are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The principles laid down in various case laws relied upon by the Id AR are also not reiterated for the sake of brevity, We find that the amalgamation of CPAL with KAFL has been approved by the order of 1 Ion’ble High Court. The Id AO ought not to have questioned the validity of the amalgamation scheme approved by the Iloifble High Court in May- 2013 merely based on a statement given by a third party which has not been subject to cross -examination. Morocver, it is also pertinent to note that the assessee and / or the slock broker Ashita Stock Broking l td name is neither mentioned in (lie said slaleincni as a person who had allegedly dealt with suspicious transactions nor they had been the beneficiaries of the transactions of shares of KAFL. Hence we hold that there is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the assessee to the entire gamut of unwarranted allegations leveled by the Id AO against the assessee, which in our considered opinion, has no legs to stand in the eyes of law. “We find that the Id DR could not controvert the arguments of the kl AR with contrary material evidences on record arid merely relied on the orders of (the lower authorities orders relied on In the Id AO and referred to him as direct evidence against the assessee did not contain the name of the assessee and/or the name of Ashika Stock Broking Lad. through whom the assessee sold die shares of KAFL as a beneficiary to the alleged accommodation entries provided by the related entities / promoters / brokers / entry operators, in the instant ease, the shares of CPAL were purchased by the assessee way back on 20.12.2011 and pursuant to merger of CPAL with KAFL, the assessee was allotted equal number of 8 C.O No.50/Kol/2025 Ajit Kumar Minda shares in KAFL, which was sold by the assessee by exiting at the most opportune moment by making good profits in order to have a good return on his investment. We find that the assessee and / or the broker Ashita Stock Broking Ltd was not the primary allottees of shares either in CPAL or in KAFL as could be evident from the SEBI’s order. We find that the SEB1 order did mention the list of 246 beneficiaries of persons trading in shares of KAFL wherein, the assessee and / or Ashita Stock Broking Lid’s name is not reflected at all. Hence the allegation that the assessee and/ or Ashita Stock Broking Ltd getting involved in price rigging of KAFL shares fails. We also find that even the SEBFs order heavily relied upon by the Id AO clearly slates that the company KAFL had performed very well during the year under appeal and the P/E ratio had increased substantially. Thus we hold that the said orders of SEBI is no evidence against the assessee, much less to speak of direct evidence. The enquiry by the Investigation Wing and/or the statements of several persons recorded by the Investigation Wing in connection with the alleged bogus transactions in the shares of KAFL also did not implicate the assessee and/or his broker, ft is also a matter of record that the assessee furnished all evidences in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statements and the bank accounts to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to purchase and sale of shares resulting in LTCG. These evidences were neither found by the Id AO to be false or fabricated. The facts of the case and the evidences in support of the assessee ks case clearly support the claim of the assessee that the transactions of the assessee were bonafide and genuine and therefore the let AO was not justified in rejecting the assessors claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act. We also find that the various case laws of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court retied upon by the Id AR and findings given thereon would apply to the facts of the instant case. The Id AR was not able to furnish any contrary cases to this effect. Hence we hold that the Id AO was not justified in assessing the sale proceeds of shares of KAFL as undisclosed income of the assesses ifs 68 of the Act, We accordingly hold that the refrained question no. 1 raised hereinabove is decided in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 8.6 Therefore, it is clearly seen that the appellant furnished all evidences in the form of bills, contract note and the bank accounts to prove the genuineness of the transaction relating to purchase and sale of share resulting in LTCG. These evidences were neither found by the Ld. AO to be false or fabricated. The facts of the case and the evidences in support of the appellant’s case clearly support the claim of the appellant that the transactions of the appellant were bonafide and genuine. 8.7 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and following the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT supra, the addition of Rs.61,74,550/- u/s.10(38) of the Act, made by the AO is deleted and ground No.1 is allowed.
9. Original Ground No. 2 is relates to unexplained expenditure of Rs. 1,23,491/- u/s. 69C f the I.T. Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the appellant paid commission to the entry provider in purchase and sale of shares of Rs. 1,23,491/- i.e. 2% of Rs. 61,74,550/-.
C.O No.50/Kol/2025 Ajit Kumar Minda 9.1. During the appellant proceedings, the appellant submitted Profit & Loss A/c., Balance Sheet & Computation of total income in which the actual expenditure incurred on account of brokerage was reflected. 9.2 On the 1 st ground of appeal
, we already discussed that the transaction relating to LTCG were genuine and not the accommodation entries as alleged by the AO. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,23,491/- u/s. 69C of the IT Act and ground No. 2 is allowed.
10. Original Ground No.3 relates to interest charged u/s.234B & 234D of the Act. Charging of interest u/s.234B and 234D are mandatory and consequential in nature. Hence, Ground No.3 is dismissed.
11. In the result, the appeal is Allowed.”
5. Aggrieved by the above order, the revenue is in appeal challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) holding that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and while passing the order, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the reassessment as bad in law by setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer and while passing the order of the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) did not look into the facts as considered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj order dated 14.06.2022.
6. On the other hand, the ld. AR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the reassessment was merely a change of opinion since the claim u/s 10(38) of the Act had already examined and allowed in the original assessment order dated 20.04.2017. He also contended that in the absence of any new tangible material, the Assessing Officer was not justified in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal on legal issue itself and even on merits, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, challenging the impugned order by the revenue is not proper on the grounds raised in the appeal. Since the appeal of the assessee was allowed by the ld. CIT(A) on two counts i.e. on legal issue relating to reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and on merits stating that all supported documents were furnished by the assessee before the authority below. Since the revenue did not challenges the legal issue relating to validity of reopening, therefore, the ground taken for examining on merits itself is not proper.
C.O No.50/Kol/2025 Ajit Kumar Minda He argued that at this stage, the appeal of the revenue may be dismissed by sustaining the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We, after considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, find that original assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 20.04.2017 wherein the assessee’s claim u/s 10(38) of the Act specifically considered and accepted. Subsequently, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment are based on the same material that was already available at the time of original assessment. There was no allegation that any fresh tangible material was in possession of the Assessing Officer. It is settled principle of law that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on mere change of opinion. The principle has been reiterated by the various High Courts on this context. We note that in the present case, the reassessment was initiated without bringing any new material on record, therefore, the reassessment u/s 147 of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law. Once the reassessment itself held invalid, the merits of the addition do not survive and need not required to be adjudicate. Accordingly, we sustain the order of the ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.
In view of our above decision, since the appeal of the revenue has been dismissed, therefore, the cross objections filed by the assessee has become infructuous and the issues challenged in the cross-objection are not required to be adjudicated. Accordingly, the C.O 50/Kol/2025 is also dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed. Kolkata, the 17th September, 2025.