M/S. SCICOM TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6075/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 August 2023AY 2007-084 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion, not on new tangible material. Therefore, the consequential assessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's original assessment was completed, but the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened it. The AO cited reasons for reopening based on a perusal of existing records, implying no new tangible material was found.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of a completed assessment under Section 148 was valid when based on a change of opinion and not new tangible material.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. YOGESH KUMAR US

For Appellant: CA Ms. Shalini, Advocate
Hearing: 09/08/2023Pronounced: 11/08/2023

ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-10, New Delhi dated 16.08.2013 pertaining to A.Y. 2007-08.

2.

The grievance of the assessee read as under :-

1.

That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act by the ld. AO and consequential assessment proceedings are valid. 3. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that advance amounting to Rs.59,46,869/- written off by the assessee is not allowable as a deduction from business income.

3.

Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused and the relevant documentary evidences brought on record duly considered alongwith judicial decisions relied upon.

4.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the original assessment was completed u/s. 143 (3) of the Act vide order dated 23.11.2010. The completed assessment was reopened by citing the following reasons :-

5.

We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforementioned reasons for reopening the assessment. We find that in the reasons itself the AO has mentioned “perusal of record reveals” which means that no new tangible material was brought on record and the AO has used what was already there in his records. This is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Limited 320 ITR 561. As no new tangible material has been brought on record the reopening can only be just a change of opinion which is not permissible for reopening the completed assessment.

6.

The assumption of jurisdiction is held to be bad in law and the resulted assessment order deserves to be quashed.

7.

Since we have quashed the assessment order we do not find it necessary to dwell into the merits of the case.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →