Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s decision regarding assessment year 2012-13, which involved proceedings under section 143(3). The core grievance was the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessment reopening was legally unsustainable.
Held
The Tribunal observed that a regular assessment under section 143(3) had already been completed after scrutiny of share application money. As this fact was undisputed by the Revenue, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the reopening constituted a mere change of opinion.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment, undertaken after a regular assessment under section 143(3), was based on a change of opinion and hence invalid.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No:ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081655145(1), dated 13.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of haring that the Revenue/appellant is aggrieved against the CIT(A)’s action in lower appellate discussion holding the impugned reopening as not sustainable in law being in the nature of mere change of opinion going by CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 161
That being the case, the tribunal hereby notices from the perusal of the case records that the assessing authority had in fact framed its regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 05.11.2014 after examining the assessee’s share application money received from M/s Mithinlanchal Investment and Finance Ltd. going by information/enquiries u/s 133(6) of the Act dated 12.09.2024 (page -151 of the paper book). This clinching fact is unrebutted from the Revenue side. I therefore hold in this factual backdrop that the CIT(A)’s lower discussion has already quashed the impugned reopening as a mere change of opinion which does not call for any interference.
The Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.