CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

320 ITR 561Supreme Court of India2010#18 most cited

What is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

1,673

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,515 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. · Kelvinator of India · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment proceedings · mere change of opinion · fresh tangible material · escapement of income · reason to believe · validity of reassessment

Also reported as

187 Taxmann 3122 SCC 723187 Taxmann.com 312

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 142(1)Section 151Section 143(2)Section 68Section 139
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

kelvinatorfresh tangible materialmere change of opinionfirst proviso to section 147material facts necessary for assessmentfull and true disclosurechange of opinionbeyond four yearslive linktangible materialescapement of incomereason to believe

Judgments citing CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Alfa Laval India Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2173/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2173/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 The Dy.Cit, .......अपीलाथ" /Appellant Circle-8, Pune. बनाम / V/S. M/S.Alfa Laval India Ltd., S.No.2221 A, Mumbai – Pune Road, Dapodi, Near Kasarwadi, Pune – 411 012. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan: Aaaca 5899 A Revenue By : Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak - Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune Dated 01.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2003-04. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Is Correct In Holding The Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 As Bad In Law? 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Appreciating That The Mistake In The Original Assessment Due To Erroneous Construction Or Due To Non-Consideration Of The Conditions Required To Be Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak - ARFor Respondent: Shri S.P.Walimbe - DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80H

…e AO had reworked the deduction u/s 80HHC while passing the assessment order. In view of this, the appellant pleads that the reopening would amount to change of opinion and relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). The appellant also relied on the following deicison: a. IPCA Laboratories Ltd Vs. Gajanand Meena DCIT [2001] 251 ITR 416 (Bom). b. Bhor Industries Ltd Vs. ACIT & ORS [2004] 267 ITR 335 (Bom). c. Desai Brothers Ltd Vs. ANR [2005] 272 ITR 335 (Bom). d. Hindustan Lever Ltd Vs. R.B.Wadkar, ACIT [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom) e. Mangalore Refinery & P…

Goel Ganga Construction, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 7(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2138/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri M. Jasnani
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2138/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Goel Ganga Construction, Vs. ITO, Ward- 7(3), 3rd Floor, San Mahu Complex, Pune. Bund Garden Road, Opp. Poona Club, Pune- 411001. PAN : AAGFG1939G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Thakkar Revenue by : Shri M. Jasnani Date of hearing 08.03.2022 : Date of pronouncement : 11.03.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against…

Historic Tbs Asia Llc, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1274/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 199Section 234BSection 27i

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1274/DEL/2015 [A.Y 2007-08] Historic TBS Asia LLC Vs. The Dy. C.I.T. [Formerly Turner Broadcasting System Circle 21(2) Asia Pacific Inc.] New Delhi C/o Pricewater House Coopers Pvt Ltd Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No. 2, 1st Floor 11A, Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi PAN: AABCT 6252 D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv Department By : Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 07.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 ORDER…

Asst. CIT -Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rakhi Properties & Lesing P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 947/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleacit – Circle – 2(3)(1) V. M/S. Rakhi Properties & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., 61/62 Gaya Building, 4Th Floor, Y.M. Road Room No. 552, 5Th Floor Masjid Bunder, Mumbai - 400003 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccr8822L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Department by Shri T. Shankar
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 68

…roperties and Leasing Pvt. Ltd., not appear in the list of 212 companies operated by Shri Shirish C Shah. The Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the judicial decision of Apex Court and Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India reported in 187 Taxmann 312 (SC) and NYK Line (India) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 68 DTR 90 (Bom). In conclusion, Ld. CIT(A) held that the material alleging that the share applicants belong to Shri Shirish C Shah group is found to be incorrect as also has been accepted in remand report dated 19/02/2016. 7. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. At the time of heari…

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…assessment proceedings and after considering the reply of the assessee on this issue, the AO has not made any addition there. Considering the same issue amounts to change of opinion as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC) that section 147 would not give arbitrary power to the AO to reopen the assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion which cannot be per se reason to reopen. It was also held that there is a difference between power to review and power to reassess. The AO has no power to review, but he has power to reassess. But reassessment is to be ma…

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…assessment proceedings and after considering the reply of the assessee on this issue, the AO has not made any addition there. Considering the same issue amounts to change of opinion as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC) that section 147 would not give arbitrary power to the AO to reopen the assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion which cannot be per se reason to reopen. It was also held that there is a difference between power to review and power to reassess. The AO has no power to review, but he has power to reassess. But reassessment is to be ma…

Shri Gurcharan Singh, Garshankar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/ASR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, Sr DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…91/- being mentioned as the income of the Petitioner was a clerical mistake and that the latter figure would be treated as his income.” 8. The observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Commissioner of Income- tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) reads as follows:- “Therefore, post 1-4-1989 , power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be p…

Enviro Technology Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch Circle-2, Bharuch

ITA 1472/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 234DSection 234D(1)Section 254(1)Section 80I

…CIT Vs Nirma Chemical Works P. Ltd. (182 Taxman 183) /309 ITR 67, Nirma Industries Limited 283 ITR 402 (Guj) 155 taxmann 330 (Guj), decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kolkata Discount Company Limited 41 ITR 191 (SC) and in CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Limited 320 ITR 561 (SC). 9. On merit, the ld. Senior Counsel for the Assessee submits that all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No.1849/AHD/2011. The ld. Senior Counsel submits that he has not pressing Ground No.3 which relates to write back o…

Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch

ITA 499/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 234DSection 234D(1)Section 254(1)Section 80I

…CIT Vs Nirma Chemical Works P. Ltd. (182 Taxman 183) /309 ITR 67, Nirma Industries Limited 283 ITR 402 (Guj) 155 taxmann 330 (Guj), decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kolkata Discount Company Limited 41 ITR 191 (SC) and in CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Limited 320 ITR 561 (SC). 9. On merit, the ld. Senior Counsel for the Assessee submits that all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No.1849/AHD/2011. The ld. Senior Counsel submits that he has not pressing Ground No.3 which relates to write back o…

Enviro Technology Limited, Ankleshwar vs. The ACIT., Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

ITA 2017/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 234DSection 234D(1)Section 254(1)Section 80I

…CIT Vs Nirma Chemical Works P. Ltd. (182 Taxman 183) /309 ITR 67, Nirma Industries Limited 283 ITR 402 (Guj) 155 taxmann 330 (Guj), decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kolkata Discount Company Limited 41 ITR 191 (SC) and in CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Limited 320 ITR 561 (SC). 9. On merit, the ld. Senior Counsel for the Assessee submits that all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No.1849/AHD/2011. The ld. Senior Counsel submits that he has not pressing Ground No.3 which relates to write back o…

Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Ltu-II, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…see relied on few of the case laws:- 1) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Foramer France, 264 ITR 566 (2003) 2) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Foramer France, 247 ITR 436 (2001) 3) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (2010) 4) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd., 256 ITR 1 (2002) 5) Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Elgi Finance Ltd., 286 ITR 674 (2006) 8. Whereas, the ld.CIT-DR in relation to slump sales of CCP division by assessee to Mobis India Ltd., argued that actually this is I.T.A. No.1836/Chny/2017 15 not slump…

Mr.M J Aravind, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 222/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 48Section 57

…inal assessment proceedings and after considering the reply of the assessee on this issue, the AO has made any addition there. Considering the same issue amounts to change of opinion as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC) that section 147 would not give arbitrary power to the AO to reopen the assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion which cannot be per se reason to reopen. It was also held that there is a difference between power to review and power to reassess. The AO has no power to review, but he has power to reassess. But reassessment is to be ma…

D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Turtle Ltd., Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2620/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 3

…1 Turtle Ltd. AY: 2012-13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri Girish Agrawal, AM] I.T.A. No. 2620/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs. Turtle Ltd. (PAN: AABCT 1375 R) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (virtual) 02.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 23.02.2022 For the Appellant Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA For the Respondent Md. Ghayas Uddin, CITDR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This is an appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-4, Kolkata dated 02.09.2019 for AY 2012-13. 2. The first ground of the revenue i…

V P Sivakozhunthu, Pondicherry vs. DCIT Pondicherry Circle, Pondicherry

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1098/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40Section 40A(3)

…ial coming into his possession subsequent to the conclusion of assessment proceedings. In such a case, the reopening would become mere review of the order which is impermissible as per the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561). We are of the opinion that the formation of belief has to be on the basis of some fresh tangible material or new information which is not the case here. This being so, reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed on legal grounds. The Ld. CIT(A), without considering this aspect, has dismissed the legal grounds which is not correct. Therefo…

Kumaragiri Steels Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 1501/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1501/Chny/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Kumaragiri Steels Ltd. Vs The Dcit, Company Circle-Ii(4) 235, Mint Street, Park Town, Chennai Chennai-600003 Pan No. : Aaack 6083 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sridhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Chennai Dated 28.03.2014 For The Assessment Year 2006- 2007. 2. As Agreed By Both The Parties, First Of All, We Heard The Arguments Of Both The Sides On Ground Nos.1, 2 & 3, Which Read As Under :- 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Chennai-600034 Dated 28.03.2014 In I.T.A No.426/2013-14 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Sustaining The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S.147 Of The Act & Erred Consequently In Confirming The Re-Assessment Framed U/S.143(3) R/W Section 147 Of The Act Without Assigning Proper Reasons & Justification. 3. The Cit(Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Order Of Re- Assessment Under Consideration Was Passed Out Of Time, Invalid, Passed Without Jurisdiction & Not Sustainable Both On Facts & In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI MANJUNATHA G, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1501/CHNY/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/s Kumaragiri Steels ltd. Vs The DCIT, Company Circle-II(4) 235, Mint Street, Park Town, Chennai Chennai-600003 PAN No. : AAACK 6083 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sridhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri G.Johnson, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 17/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The assessee has…

Mr. Anoop Harikishin Tejwani, Thane vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kalyan

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 27/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…as the relevant assessment year)." 1.2 The order is being passed and amount is disallowed based on change in opinion of assessing officer, The Honorable Supreme Court held in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 2 SCC 723. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in the present case of the assessee assessment was completed on 28.03.2013 in addition of Rs. 1,08,000/- u/s. 68 of the I.T.Act. Subsequently, case was repened on 31.03.2017 by issue of notice on account of Audit Objection raised by the Audit Party. Assessee was issued showcause as to why assessment should not b…

ITO Ward 1, Kanchipuram vs. Rajkumar, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2623/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2623/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs Mr. Rajkumar, Ward-1 17, High Road, Thirumazhisai Kanchipuram. Chennai-602 107. Pan: Aehpr 1513A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. K.Babasubramanian, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 44ASection 54F

…e assessee has offered profit of Rs.9,20,603/-. 7. The learned CIT(A), after considering relevant facts and has also by relied upon certain judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561, quashed reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on ‘change of opinion’ without there being any fresh tangible material which is evident from fact that the assessee had already submitted relevant details with regard to exemption claimed u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act…

Shri Gopal Yadev Selva Kumar, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 111/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr.Gopal Yadav Selva Kumar, V. The Income Tax Officer, 65, Vellore Main Road, Ward-2, 1St Street, Arcot, Vellore-632 503. Vellore. [Pan: Btsps 5973 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Salai Varun Isai Azhagan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2022

For Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…herefore, the Impugned reassessment being initiated on a change of opinion is an arbitrary exercise of the provision under section 148 and ought to set aside. The said principle has been upheld by the Full Bench judgment in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. 2010 2 SCC 723. The relevant lines of the judgment is extracted below:- :: 5 :: "One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of in…

Abhishek Agarwal, Nani Daman vs. ITO, Daman Ward, Daman

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 97/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.97/Srt/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Abhishek Agarwal Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Radha Madhav Kunj, Opp. Gem Daman Ward, Daman. Plaza, College Road, Nani Daman. [Pan: Adxpa8893P अपीलाथ" /Assessee ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A. राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 14.10.2020 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On: 06.01.2022

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…efit of its own wrong. It was held that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion. On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court, (reported in 320 ITR 561(SC)) it was held that though the power ITA No. 97/SRT/2018 A.Y. 07-08 Abhishek Agarwal to reopen under the amended section 147 is much wider, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinio…

Vananchal Properties Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1065/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Jain Dixit, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 2(22)(e)

…the order of Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be reversed and the reopening may kindly be quashed as without any tangible materials. The Ld. A.R. in defense of his argument relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinatpor India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). 7. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied heavily on the order of Ld. CIT(A) by submitting that the AO has recorded reasons on the basis of material before him and after recording the reasons 4 M/s. Vananchal Properties Ltd. reopened the assessment. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the reopening of assessment was very much co…