DCIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD., GAJRAULA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6732/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 June 2019AY 1996-973 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that reopening a concluded assessment requires tangible material, not merely a review of existing records. Since the AO reopened the case based on the same material available during the original assessment, it was considered a change of opinion, and thus invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was completed, and later a notice under Section 148 was issued for reassessment. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case based on a review of the return and assessment order, citing excess deductions claimed by the assessee. The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding it was based on a change of opinion.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was valid when based on a mere change of opinion and review of existing records, without any new tangible material.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv, Ms. Deepika Agarwal, Adv
For Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR, Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv, Ms. Deepika Agarwal, Adv
Hearing: 02/04/2019Pronounced: 25/06/2019

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.”

3.

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/-.

4.

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

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →