Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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.