PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2 vs. M/S. CHL LIMITED

The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Tribunal (ITAT) which has set aside the assessment framed. It contends that the reasoning with respect to untenability of re- assessment for the Assessment Year (AY) 2000-01, in the facts of this case, was not justified. 2. The assessee had filed its returns for the AY 2000-01 claiming certain income to be part of its returns had arisen under Section 80HHb. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3).

The additions made by the Assessing Officer were appealed against by the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions holding that the amounts brought to tax could not have been legitimately claimed as deduction under Section 80HHb. Upon further appeal, the ITAT allowed the assessee’s contentions. The ITAT has reasoned that the AO’s opinion, with respect to assessee’s failure with respect to all material facts revealed, amounted to change of the opinion and that in the absence of any fresh material; the circumstances that for the previous assessment year (i.e. AY 1998-99) the additions made by the AO were accepted, could not stand. The ITAT’s reasoning is as follows: - “In the present case, as noted above, Assessing Officer was having before him all material facts that were necessary for the purposes of completing original assessment. The Assessing Officer's recording that the assessee has failed to disclose all material facts necessary for completion of assessment without pointing out as to what was the material that was not disclosed. It is a bland statement which remains unsustainable. The reassessment was not passed on only fresh material. The material on record was only examined and used for recording reasons for reopening. The reopening was merely a change of opinion on the same set of facts and material. No fresh material came in to the possession of the Assessing Officer warranting reopening. Hence the reopening is bad in law. We, therefore, set aside and quash the notice u/s 148 and assessment order for A.Y. 2000-01. We, therefore, do not find any necessity to dwell upon the merits of the case. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for A. Y 2000-01.”

This Court is of the opinion that the conclusion recorded by the ITAT does not call any interference. The regular assessment was completed, in this case, on 31.03.2003. The regular assessment for AY 1998-99 was completed on 27.03.2001. In these circumstances, the assessee could not be faulted for having accepted the additions made for the previous assessment year (AY 1998-99); though later, given that the returns were filed on 29.11.2000 for the assessment year (AY 2000-01) in the present case. 5. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.