ACIT CEN CIR 42, MUMBAI vs. ACG ARTS & PROPERTIES P.LTD, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) held that the reopening was invalid due to a change of opinion by the AO, as no new tangible material was brought to light. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened an assessment under Section 147 after an earlier assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A. In the reopened assessment, the AO made a disallowance under Section 14A. The assessee argued that the reopening was based on a change of opinion, as details for Section 14A were provided in the original assessment.
What were the issues?
Whether reopening of assessment under Section 147 is valid when it is based on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer without any new material.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.1,673 citing320 ITR 561 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI SANJAY GARG
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 27.11.2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2004-05.
The Revenue, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in treating the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act as bad in law and without jurisdiction. The brief facts of the case are that the earlier assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act was done by the AO in the case of the assessee determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.7,26,67,400/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act by the AO. In the reopened assessment proceedings the AO made a disallowance
2 M/s. ACG Arts & Properties Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.11,73,365/- under section 14A of the Act. During the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT vs. Kelvinator of India” 320 ITR 561, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the reopening in this case was based on the change of opinion of the AO. The assessee had submitted the required details with respect to disallowance under section 14A during the original assessment proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 153A. The AO, however, did not make any addition under section 14A of the Act during the original assessment proceedings. After considering the submissions of the Ld. A.R., the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the AO once had applied his mind and has taken a view on the facts present before him and no tangible material has come to his knowledge, then the reopening was not justified because of the change of opinion of the AO on the same set of fact. He, therefore, held that the reopening in this case was not valid. He, therefore, set aside the assessment made in the reopened proceedings.
The Ld. D.R. could not point out any new fact or proposition of law which may justify our inference in the above well reasoned order of the Ld. CIT(A).
We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is accordingly upheld.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.10.2015.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
