Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the ld DCIT, Circle-1, Moradabad against the order of the ld CIT(A), Bariely dated 30.09.2013. 2. Grounds of appeal are as under:-
1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the circumstances of the case accepting the reply of the assessee and cancelled reassessment proceedings completed u/: 148 of Income Tax.
2. That the ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on the circumstances of the case in holding that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid after accepting the decision relied upon by the assessee as the facts of the decision relied are not comparable with the facts of the case of the assessee.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the circumstances of the case in not appreciating the reasons recorded by the AO that there was reason to believe for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and it was not issued on change of opinion.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not appreciating that the assessment was correctly reopened in the light of decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of EMA India Ltd Vs ACIT(2009)226CTR(ALL)659.”
Brief facts of the case is that the assessee filed return of income on 30.11.1996 showing total income of Rs. 18,16,23,153/- which was revised on 19.11.1997 showing total income of Rs. 18,19,88,395/-. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 10.12.1997 at Rs. 191946410/-. Subsequently, on appeal effect order of the ld CIT(A) the total income was assessed at Rs. 18,83,48,750/- on 12.09.2000/-.
Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on12.06.1998.The main reasons recorded by the ld AO shows that he has reopened the case on „verification of the return of income and assessment order‟ and noted that certain excess deduction were claimed by the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order u/s 148 read with section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.03.2001 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 20,81,13,830/-. The assessee preferred appeal before the ld CIT(A), Bareilly who confirmed the reopening of the assessment and granted certain relief to the assessee on merits. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the coordinate bench in challenging the validity of the reopening proceedings. The coordinate bench vide order dated 13.06.2008 set aside the issue of validity of reopening to the file of the ld CIT(A). Consequently, the ld CIT(A) on 30.09.2013 passed an order holding that the reopening is „merely on the change of opinion‟ and hence quashed. Therefore, the ld AO aggrieved, has preferred this appeal. 6. The ld DR vehemently referred to the reasons recorded and submitted that reopening has been validly made by the ld AO. 7. The ld AR vehemently referred to the reasons recorded and submitted that reopening has been done merely on the basis of verification of the return of income as well as the assessment orders. He further submitted that there is no tangible material coming into the possession of the ld AO and hence, the ld CIT(A) has correctly quashed the reopening of assessment. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the reasons recorded by the ld AO which are placed at page No. 79 to 82 of the paper book. The ld AO has stated that „on going through the return of income and assessment order‟ he found that the assessee has claimed excess deduction. Thereafter, he listed those issues on which he proposed