Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member) ITA No. 1160/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Indian Wire & Steel Products.....…………........................................................……………….…......Appellant 2nd Floor 113A, Manohar Das Katra Kolkata – 700 007 [PAN : AAAFI 7079 M] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-44, Kolkata………………………………….…....Respondent Appearances by: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT Sr. D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : December 10th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : January 10th, 2020 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :-
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata, (hereinafter the “ld.CIT(A)”), passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 26/02/2019, for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee filed the following revised grounds of appeal:- “1a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the re-assessment proceedings since the same was initiated without recording proper reasons to belief. (b) For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held the entire re-assessment proceedings as invalid since the same was initiated on mere change of opinion on the same set of facts. (c) For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the re-assessment proceedings inasmuch as there was lack of proper reasons to belief and / or applicability of independent mind on the part of the A.O. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of interest on unsecured loan of Rs. 5,40,000/- by wrongly treating the loan as bogus.”
The basic challenge of the assessee is on the issue of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 4. Heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, I hold as follows:- 5. The reasons recorded for reopening are extracted for ready reference:-
2 ITA No. 1160/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Indian Wire & Steel Products
“This officer is in receipt of information from the Assistant Commissioner of This officer is in receipt of information from the Assistant Commissioner of This officer is in receipt of information from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2(1), Kolkata on 29.03.2017 on the subject matter 2(1), Kolkata on 29.03.2017 on the subject matter 2(1), Kolkata on 29.03.2017 on the subject matter “Sharing of information with respect to accommodation entry provided by Anand Sharma mation with respect to accommodation entry provided by Anand Sharma mation with respect to accommodation entry provided by Anand Sharma & Group” vide letter no. ACIT/CC vide letter no. ACIT/CC-2(1)/Sharing information/Kol/2016 2(1)/Sharing information/Kol/2016-17/3335 dated 27.03.2017. This office has received on 29.03.2017. dated 27.03.2017. This office has received on 29.03.2017. On going through the said information, it is seen that On going through the said information, it is seen that a Search & Seizure a Search & Seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the income Tax, 1961 was carried out in the case of Anand operation u/s 132(1) of the income Tax, 1961 was carried out in the case of Anand operation u/s 132(1) of the income Tax, 1961 was carried out in the case of Anand Kumar Sharma, well known entry operators and his other related entities on Kumar Sharma, well known entry operators and his other related entities on Kumar Sharma, well known entry operators and his other related entities on 02.07.2013. In the statement, Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha has accepted that he is an 02.07.2013. In the statement, Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha has accepted that he is an 02.07.2013. In the statement, Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha has accepted that he is an entry operator and he provided various bogus accommodation entries to the various ntry operator and he provided various bogus accommodation entries to the various ntry operator and he provided various bogus accommodation entries to the various beneficiaries for commission through his shell companies. Mr. Anand Kumar Sharma beneficiaries for commission through his shell companies. Mr. Anand Kumar Sharma beneficiaries for commission through his shell companies. Mr. Anand Kumar Sharma also accepted that all the directors of these entities/companies are dummy directors also accepted that all the directors of these entities/companies are dummy directors also accepted that all the directors of these entities/companies are dummy directors appointed by him. Mr. Anand Kumar Sharma also accepted that he controls the by him. Mr. Anand Kumar Sharma also accepted that he controls the by him. Mr. Anand Kumar Sharma also accepted that he controls the entire activities/affairs of these entities/ companies and these entities/ companies entire activities/affairs of these entities/ companies and these entities/ companies entire activities/affairs of these entities/ companies and these entities/ companies were incorporated for providing bogus accommodation entries only. Mr. Anand were incorporated for providing bogus accommodation entries only. Mr. Anand were incorporated for providing bogus accommodation entries only. Mr. Anand Kumar Sharma also accepted t Kumar Sharma also accepted that he controlled, manage and operated all these hat he controlled, manage and operated all these bogus entities, which are operated by him for providing bogus accommodation bogus entities, which are operated by him for providing bogus accommodation bogus entities, which are operated by him for providing bogus accommodation entries to the various beneficiaries for commission. entries to the various beneficiaries for commission. From the details provided by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC From the details provided by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC From the details provided by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC- 2(1), Kolkata, it has been gather that Indian Wire & Steel Product, PAN:AAAFI7079M, , Kolkata, it has been gather that Indian Wire & Steel Product, PAN:AAAFI7079M, , Kolkata, it has been gather that Indian Wire & Steel Product, PAN:AAAFI7079M, has taken the bogus accommodation entries through different transaction of the has taken the bogus accommodation entries through different transaction of the has taken the bogus accommodation entries through different transaction of the bogus entities/companies managed, controlled and operated by Mr. Anand Kumar bogus entities/companies managed, controlled and operated by Mr. Anand Kumar bogus entities/companies managed, controlled and operated by Mr. Anand Kumar Sharma and details of interest paid & TDS to the Bogus company are given below: f interest paid & TDS to the Bogus company are given below: f interest paid & TDS to the Bogus company are given below:-
SI. Name of Company TAN Name of the Amounts Date of No. Deductor Payment/Credit 1 Sumit Iron CALI01192C Indian Wire & 1,20,000/- 31.03.2010 Steel Product 2 Vishakha Technologies CALI01192C Indian Wire & 1,80,000/- 31.03.2010 Steel Product 3. Moran Plant & Machinery CALI01192C Indian Wire & 1,20,000/- 31.03.2010 Steel Product 4. Dhirendra Merchants CALI01192C Indian Wire & 1,20,000/- 31.03.2010 Steel Product Total Rs.5,40,000/ Total Rs.5,40,000/-
In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for the A.Y. 2010-11 has escaped assessment to the extent of bogus accommodation 11 has escaped assessment to the extent of bogus accommodation 11 has escaped assessment to the extent of bogus accommodation entries of Rs.5,40,000/ Rs.5,40,000/- made through entry provided by Anand Sharma & entry provided by Anand Sharma & Group, as mentioned above Group, as mentioned above within the meaning of the provisions of section 147 of ithin the meaning of the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
ITA No. 1160/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Indian Wire & Steel Products 6. The original assessment in this case has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act The original assessment in this case has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act The original assessment in this case has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt. 04/05/2012. The reopening is beyond a period of four years from the end vide order dt. 04/05/2012. The reopening is beyond a period of four years from the end vide order dt. 04/05/2012. The reopening is beyond a period of four years from the end of the Assessment Year and hence the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, is applicable. he Assessment Year and hence the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, is applicable. he Assessment Year and hence the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, is applicable. 7. A perusal of the reasons for reopening demonstrates that there is no allegation A perusal of the reasons for reopening demonstrates that there is no allegation A perusal of the reasons for reopening demonstrates that there is no allegation made by the Assessing Officer that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to made by the Assessing Officer that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to made by the Assessing Officer that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment. sclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment.
This Bench of the Tribunal, while adjudicating a similar issue in the assessee’s This Bench of the Tribunal, while adjudicating a similar issue in the assessee’s This Bench of the Tribunal, while adjudicating a similar issue in the assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year own case for the Assessment Year 2009-10 in ITA No. 2607/Kol/2018, order dt. July 24 ITA No. 2607/Kol/2018, order dt. July 24th, 2019, has held as follows:- “5. We find that the ‘A’ Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Beekay Steel Industries We find that the ‘A’ Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Beekay Steel Industries We find that the ‘A’ Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Beekay Steel Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT CC-XXX, Kolkata, in I.T.A. No. 105/Kol/2015, order dt. 31/05/2017, held as follows: XXX, Kolkata, in I.T.A. No. 105/Kol/2015, order dt. 31/05/2017, held as follows: XXX, Kolkata, in I.T.A. No. 105/Kol/2015, order dt. 31/05/2017, held as follows: 4.4. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of 4.4. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT reported in (2015) Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT reported in (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom.), has held as follows: 370 ITR 135 (Bom.), has held as follows:- “10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was any “10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was any “10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was any failure on the part of the Petitioner to provide all the materi failure on the part of the Petitioner to provide all the material facts. That being the position, this ground al facts. That being the position, this ground could not have been taken up against the Petitioner at the time of disposing of the objections. Once this could not have been taken up against the Petitioner at the time of disposing of the objections. Once this could not have been taken up against the Petitioner at the time of disposing of the objections. Once this was not the basis for issuance of notice for Reassessment, it cannot be held against the Petitioner tha was not the basis for issuance of notice for Reassessment, it cannot be held against the Petitioner tha was not the basis for issuance of notice for Reassessment, it cannot be held against the Petitioner that the Petitioner had failed to make a true and full disclosure. It will have to be held that the Petitioner did not Petitioner had failed to make a true and full disclosure. It will have to be held that the Petitioner did not Petitioner had failed to make a true and full disclosure. It will have to be held that the Petitioner did not fail to make full and true disclosure of all material facts. The jurisdictional requirement for carrying out fail to make full and true disclosure of all material facts. The jurisdictional requirement for carrying out fail to make full and true disclosure of all material facts. The jurisdictional requirement for carrying out the reassessment, after the exp the reassessment, after the expiry of period of four years, is not fulfilled in the present case.” iry of period of four years, is not fulfilled in the present case.” 4.5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sound Casting (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT reported in 250 CTR 4.5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sound Casting (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT reported in 250 CTR 4.5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sound Casting (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT reported in 250 CTR 119 (Bom.) (HC), has held that there is no allegation in the reasons which have been 119 (Bom.) (HC), has held that there is no allegation in the reasons which have been 119 (Bom.) (HC), has held that there is no allegation in the reasons which have been disclosed to the assessee that there was any failure on his part to fully and truly disclose material facts necessary for assessee that there was any failure on his part to fully and truly disclose material facts necessary for assessee that there was any failure on his part to fully and truly disclose material facts necessary for assessment and therefore reopening beyond four years was not valid. (A.Y. 2005 assessment and therefore reopening beyond four years was not valid. (A.Y. 2005-06). 4.6. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of 4.6. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. reported in [2013] 354 ITR 356 CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. reported in [2013] 354 ITR 356 (Del.)(HC) has held as follows: (Del.)(HC) has held as follows: “The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in the present case do confirm our apprehension “The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in the present case do confirm our apprehension “The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in the present case do confirm our apprehension about the harm that a less strict interpretation of the words “reason t about the harm that a less strict interpretation of the words “reason to believe” vis o believe” vis-à-vis an intimation issued under section 143(1) can cause to the tax regime. There is no whisper in the intimation issued under section 143(1) can cause to the tax regime. There is no whisper in the intimation issued under section 143(1) can cause to the tax regime. There is no whisper in the reasons recorded, of any tangible material which came to the possession of the assessing officer reasons recorded, of any tangible material which came to the possession of the assessing officer reasons recorded, of any tangible material which came to the possession of the assessing officer subsequent to the issue of the intimatio subsequent to the issue of the intimation. It reflects an arbitrary exercise of the power conferred n. It reflects an arbitrary exercise of the power conferred under section 147.” under section 147.” 4.7. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of 4.7. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of 4.7. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Anor. reported in [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Delhi) has held as fo Tax and Anor. reported in [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Delhi) has held as follows: “26 Viewed in this light, the proviso to section 147 of the said Act, carves out an exception from Viewed in this light, the proviso to section 147 of the said Act, carves out an exception from Viewed in this light, the proviso to section 147 of the said Act, carves out an exception from the main provisions of section 147. If a case were to fall within the proviso, whether or not it was the main provisions of section 147. If a case were to fall within the proviso, whether or not it was the main provisions of section 147. If a case were to fall within the proviso, whether or not it was covered under the main provisions of section 147 covered under the main provisions of section 147 of the said Act would not be material. Once the of the said Act would not be material. Once the exception carved out by the proviso came into play, the case would fall outside the ambit of exception carved out by the proviso came into play, the case would fall outside the ambit of exception carved out by the proviso came into play, the case would fall outside the ambit of section 147.
27 Examining the proviso [set out above], we find that no action can be taken under section 147 Examining the proviso [set out above], we find that no action can be taken under section 147 Examining the proviso [set out above], we find that no action can be taken under section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year if the following r the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year if the following r the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year if the following conditions are satisfied: conditions are satisfied: (a) an assessment under sub (a) an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year; and (b) relevant assessment year; and (b) unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee: (i) to make a return for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee: (i) to make a return for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee: (i) to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section (1) of section 142 or
ITA No. 1160/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Indian Wire & Steel Products section 148; or (ii) to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for on 148; or (ii) to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for on 148; or (ii) to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. that assessment year. Condition (a) is admittedly satisfied inasmuch as the original assessment was Condition (a) is admittedly satisfied inasmuch as the original assessment was Condition (a) is admittedly satisfied inasmuch as the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the said Act. Condition completed under section 143(3) of the said Act. Condition (b) deals with a special kind of (b) deals with a special kind of escapement of income chargeable to tax. The escapement must arise out of the failure on the escapement of income chargeable to tax. The escapement must arise out of the failure on the escapement of income chargeable to tax. The escapement must arise out of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or s section (1) of section 142 or section 148. This is clearly not the case here because the ection 148. This is clearly not the case here because the petitioner did file the return. Since there was no failure to make the return, the escapement of petitioner did file the return. Since there was no failure to make the return, the escapement of petitioner did file the return. Since there was no failure to make the return, the escapement of income cannot be attributed to such failure. This leaves us with the escapement of income income cannot be attributed to such failure. This leaves us with the escapement of income income cannot be attributed to such failure. This leaves us with the escapement of income chargeable to tax which arises out of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and to tax which arises out of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and to tax which arises out of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. If it is also found truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. If it is also found truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. If it is also found that the petitioner had disclosed fully and truly all material fact that the petitioner had disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment, s necessary for its assessment, then no action under section 147 could have been taken after the four year period indicated then no action under section 147 could have been taken after the four year period indicated then no action under section 147 could have been taken after the four year period indicated above. So, the key question is whether or not the petitioner had made a full and true disclosure above. So, the key question is whether or not the petitioner had made a full and true disclosure above. So, the key question is whether or not the petitioner had made a full and true disclosure of all material facts ? of all material facts ? 29 In the reasons supplied to the petitioner, there is no whisper, what to speak of any allegation, In the reasons supplied to the petitioner, there is no whisper, what to speak of any allegation, In the reasons supplied to the petitioner, there is no whisper, what to speak of any allegation, that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there has been an escap assessment and that because of this failure there has been an escapement of income chargeable ement of income chargeable to tax. Merely having a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, is not sufficient to to tax. Merely having a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, is not sufficient to to tax. Merely having a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, is not sufficient to reopen assessments beyond the four year period indicated above. The escapement of income reopen assessments beyond the four year period indicated above. The escapement of income reopen assessments beyond the four year period indicated above. The escapement of income from assessment must also be occasioned b from assessment must also be occasioned by the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose y the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, fully and truly. This is a necessary condition for overcoming the bar set up by the material facts, fully and truly. This is a necessary condition for overcoming the bar set up by the material facts, fully and truly. This is a necessary condition for overcoming the bar set up by the proviso to section 147. If this condition is not satisfied, the bar would operate and no action proviso to section 147. If this condition is not satisfied, the bar would operate and no action proviso to section 147. If this condition is not satisfied, the bar would operate and no action under section 147 could be taken. We have already mentioned above that the reasons supplied section 147 could be taken. We have already mentioned above that the reasons supplied section 147 could be taken. We have already mentioned above that the reasons supplied to the petitioner does not contain any such allegation. Consequently, one of the conditions to the petitioner does not contain any such allegation. Consequently, one of the conditions to the petitioner does not contain any such allegation. Consequently, one of the conditions precedent for removing the bar against taking action after the said four year precedent for removing the bar against taking action after the said four year precedent for removing the bar against taking action after the said four year period remains unfulfilled. In our recent decision in Wel Intertrade Private Ltd (supra) we had agreed with the unfulfilled. In our recent decision in Wel Intertrade Private Ltd (supra) we had agreed with the unfulfilled. In our recent decision in Wel Intertrade Private Ltd (supra) we had agreed with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Duli Chand Singhania (supra) view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Duli Chand Singhania (supra) view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Duli Chand Singhania (supra) that, in the absence of an allegation in the reasons that, in the absence of an allegation in the reasons recorded that the escapement of income had recorded that the escapement of income had occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, any action taken by the Assessing officer under section 147 facts necessary for his assessment, any action taken by the Assessing officer under section 147 facts necessary for his assessment, any action taken by the Assessing officer under section 147 beyond the four year period would be wholly without jurisdiction. Reiterating our view ear period would be wholly without jurisdiction. Reiterating our view ear period would be wholly without jurisdiction. Reiterating our view-point, we hold that the notice dated 29.03.2004 under section 148 based on the recorded reasons as hold that the notice dated 29.03.2004 under section 148 based on the recorded reasons as hold that the notice dated 29.03.2004 under section 148 based on the recorded reasons as supplied to the petitioner as well as the consequent order dated 02.03.2005 are without supplied to the petitioner as well as the consequent order dated 02.03.2005 are without supplied to the petitioner as well as the consequent order dated 02.03.2005 are without jurisdiction as no action under section 147 could be taken beyond the four year period in the jurisdiction as no action under section 147 could be taken beyond the four year period in the jurisdiction as no action under section 147 could be taken beyond the four year period in the circumstances narrated above. circumstances narrated above.
4.8. Applying the propositions laid down in the above case law to the facts to this case, we have to 4.8. Applying the propositions laid down in the above case law to the facts to this case, we have to 4.8. Applying the propositions laid down in the above case law to the facts to this case, we have to necessarily hold that the re- -opening of the assessment proceedings is not valid that there is not even a opening of the assessment proceedings is not valid that there is not even a whisper in the reasons recorded for the reopening of the assessment that there is a failure on the part of whisper in the reasons recorded for the reopening of the assessment that there is a failure on the part of whisper in the reasons recorded for the reopening of the assessment that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the necessary material fact the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the necessary material facts required for assessment in view of s required for assessment in view of the 1st proviso to Section 147 of the Act. In this case no tangible materials have come to the possession of proviso to Section 147 of the Act. In this case no tangible materials have come to the possession of proviso to Section 147 of the Act. In this case no tangible materials have come to the possession of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the Assessment Order u/s 143(3). Re the Assessing Officer subsequent to the Assessment Order u/s 143(3). Re-opening is done based on the opening is done based on the same material and record and hence it is bad in law. As far as the contention, that there is a change in rial and record and hence it is bad in law. As far as the contention, that there is a change in rial and record and hence it is bad in law. As far as the contention, that there is a change in opinion is concerned, we are unable to agree with the ld. Counsel for the assessee as there was neither a opinion is concerned, we are unable to agree with the ld. Counsel for the assessee as there was neither a opinion is concerned, we are unable to agree with the ld. Counsel for the assessee as there was neither a query on this issue by the Assessing Officer during th query on this issue by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings, nor there was a e original assessment proceedings, nor there was a reply by the assessee. Hence there was no opinion formed. Thus, the question of change of opinion does not reply by the assessee. Hence there was no opinion formed. Thus, the question of change of opinion does not reply by the assessee. Hence there was no opinion formed. Thus, the question of change of opinion does not arise. 4.9. In any event, as we have held that the re 4.9. In any event, as we have held that the re-opening is bad in law as it does not fulfill the requirement of l the requirement of the Proviso to Section 147 of the Act, and as no tangible material has come to the possession of the the Proviso to Section 147 of the Act, and as no tangible material has come to the possession of the the Proviso to Section 147 of the Act, and as no tangible material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer, we quash the assessment and allow the appeal of the assessee. Assessing Officer, we quash the assessment and allow the appeal of the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allow 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5.1. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above referred case Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above referred case Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above referred case-law to the facts of the case on hand, I hold that the re of the case on hand, I hold that the re-opening of assessment is bad in law. 6. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.
5 ITA No. 1160/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Indian Wire & Steel Products 9. Consistent with the view taken by me is the assessee’s own case, I have to Consistent with the view taken by me is the assessee’s own case, I have to Consistent with the view taken by me is the assessee’s own case, I have to necessarily hold that the reopening is bad in law and is quashed. necessarily hold that the reopening is bad in law and is quashed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Kolkata, the Kolkata, the 10th day of January, 2020.
Sd/- [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Accountant Member Dated : 10.01.2020 {SC SPS} Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Indian Wire & Steel Products Indian Wire & Steel Products 2nd Floor 113A, Manohar Das Katra Kolkata – 700 007 Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-44, Kolkata 2. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.