NAVIN KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

The assessee raises the following substantive grounds: “1. The return of the income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on31/03/2014 declaring income of Rs 3,62,640/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and was completed on 08/03/2016 at an income of Rs 4,04,430/-after disallowing expenditure being personal nature under the head Car Maintenance, Telephone & Travelling Expenses to the tune of Rs 41,790/-. Later on, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued for reopening of the case by recording reason u/s 147 and 2 taking permission of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 20 New Delhi. The reason was that during the assessment proceedings for the AY 2014-15, it came to notice that assessee has claimed interest expenditure on the loan taken for the construction of the factory building. This factory was not put to use till date, therefore the same was not allowed and added to the income of the assessee. The AO applied the same reason to the year under question and reopened the case. Whereas all the facts pertaining to interest of Rs 13,44,924/- were fully disclosed at the initial assessment done under section 143(3) which was completed on 08/03/2016 and no addition was made on this account in the original assessment order. Therefore, initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 is not valid and moreover approval given by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-20 New Delhi is also not valid as it is based on change in opinion which can not be base for reopening of the assessment proceedings as pronounced by various judgements.