DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sheba Properties Ltd, Mumbai
In the result, the Revenue’s appeals stands dismissed
ITA 699/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10
Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 660 To 664/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13) Tata Motors Finance Limited Dy. Cit (Osd), 2(3) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As Sheba Properties बनाम/ Limited) M. K. Marg, Mumbai -400 020 10Th Floor, 106A & B, Maker Chambers Vs. Iii, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 699 To 703/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(2), Tata Motors Finance Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sheba बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Properties Limited) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18 Mumbai -400 020 Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. R. Vohra & Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin
For Appellant: Shri R. R. Vohra &For Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)
…epted. Now the Assessing Officer is changing his opinion on the basis of that said letter. In our considered opinion, this very much amounts to change of opinion, not permissible under law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) has expounded that even after amendment, reopening on the basis of change of opinion is not permissible. The presumption that unless the Assessing Officer discusses a particular issue in his assessment order u/s. 143(3), it cannot be said that he has applied his mind, is not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. Commi…
