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 367,154 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.

M/S Om Welfare Society, Hisar vs. ITO, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1583/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…roceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not in accordance with the law due to no-fulfillment of the said primary condition. The assesses also try to draw the attention of assessing authority to refer the case of CIT V. KELV1NATOR OF INDIA LTD [2010] 320 ITR 561 [SC], in the case the apex court pointed out that even though the power to reopen under the amended provision post April, 1989 is much wider, yet one has to give a schematic interpretation to the words reasons to believe. The apex court pointed out that vesting the assessing authority with the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on the basis of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 5177/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…essment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion which is not permissible.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) in its decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “However, one needs to give schematic interpretation to the words reason to belief failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer through reopening assessments on the basis of mere change of opinion, which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Arvind Khanna, New Delhi

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1703/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Agarwal, Adv
Section 148Section 16A(5)Section 55A

…h is not permissible.” ITA Nos. 1702, 1703/D/12 & CO 205/D/12 Page 8 of 12 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) in its decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “However, one needs to give schematic interpretation to the words reason to belief failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer through reopening assessments on the basis of mere change of opinion, which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also k…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Arvind Khanna, New Delhi

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1702/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Agarwal, Adv
Section 148Section 16A(5)Section 55A

…h is not permissible.” ITA Nos. 1702, 1703/D/12 & CO 205/D/12 Page 8 of 12 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) in its decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “However, one needs to give schematic interpretation to the words reason to belief failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer through reopening assessments on the basis of mere change of opinion, which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also k…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Delhi-Xxi vs. Subhash Sharma

ITA/519/2016HC Delhi03 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 148

…W.P. (C) Nos. 519/2016, 522/2016 & 761/2016 Page 1 of 12 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 18. + W.P.(C) 519/2016 AVTEC LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani and Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel. WITH 19. + W.P.(C) 522/2016…

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palmolive (India ) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6409/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Income Tax-10(3), Room Main Street, Hiranandani Garden, 4Th No.451, Floor, Aayakar Powai, Mumbai 400 076 Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacc 4309B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By .. Shri K.Mohan Das (Dr) Respondent By .. Shri Hiro Rai Date Of Hearing .. 25-07-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25-07-2016

Section 10Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 80Section 80H

…ng sought by the AO on change of opinion which is not permissible. No new tangible material has come to the knowledge of the AO so as to justify the reopening. The following observation of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 would be relevant here:- “Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain preconditions and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One 5 mu…

M/S Prithvi Granities Pvt. Ltd vs. Addl.C.I.T

In the result, grounds challenging re-assessment proceedings are dismissed

ITA 991/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Prithvi Granites Pvt.Ltd. No.196, 3Rd Phase, Bommasandra Indl. Area, Anekal Taluk Bangalore-560025. … Appellant Pa No.Aadcp 9920 C Vs.

For Appellant: Shri V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153

…t evidence of escapement of Income in his possession, but merely on the suspicion. It is submitted that mere suspicion is not a ground for issue of notice under section 148. Reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd 320 ITR 561 and CIT Vs Mahesh Gum & Oil Industries. 292 ITR 397. 4. The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax erred in issuing the notice u/s 148 which was without proper jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A)-III erred in upholding the order ignoring the fact t…

Abhayam Trading Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 411/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.410 & 411/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Abhayam Trading Limited (Formerly Known As Apple Credit The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited), V. Income Tax, No.2, Gokul Arcade, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle 1(1), Sardar Patel Road, Adyar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aacca 2996 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. Koteswara Rao, CIT
Section 115JSection 147

…nd that even though no assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Act, reopening of assessment would amount to change of opinion. The Ld. representative has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 and the judgment of Full Bench of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1. 5. Placing reliance on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244, the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that when the Assessing Officer fails to dispose of the objection raised…

Abhayam Trading Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 410/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.410 & 411/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Abhayam Trading Limited (Formerly Known As Apple Credit The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited), V. Income Tax, No.2, Gokul Arcade, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle 1(1), Sardar Patel Road, Adyar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aacca 2996 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. Koteswara Rao, CIT
Section 115JSection 147

…nd that even though no assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Act, reopening of assessment would amount to change of opinion. The Ld. representative has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 and the judgment of Full Bench of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1. 5. Placing reliance on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244, the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that when the Assessing Officer fails to dispose of the objection raised…

DCIT, Cir-11, Kolkata vs. M/S Century Plyboards (India) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result ITA No.2307/Kol/2013 is dismissed

ITA 2306/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna,,CIT,DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 288ASection 80I

…ange of opinion which was not permissible in law and therefore the order passed u/s 147 deserves to be quashed end declared ab initio void. 6. The Assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India limited 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein it was held that it was not permissible for the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings merely on a change of opinion without there being any tangible material which has come to his possession after completion of the original assessment proceedings based on which he comes to a conclusion that income chargeable to tax has escaped asse…

Lupin Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2003-04) M/S. Lupin Limited Vs. Acit Ltu, 159, C.S.T Road, Kalina, Mumbai. Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai 400 098. Pan : Aaacl1069K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 115JSection 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 35Section 80Section 80I

…change of opinion and, in the present case, no tangible material was available, therefore, in the absence of any new tangible material reopening is bad in law. In this respect, the Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments : i) Kelvinator India Ltd., (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii) Kalvinator of India Ltd., (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del HC) iii) Motilal R. Todi, ITA No. 2910/Mum/2013 (Mum Trib) dated 22nd September, 2015 iv) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd., (2015) 371 ITR 225 (Bom HC) v) Oriental Insurance Company, (2015) 94 CCH 12 (Del HC) vi) Amitabh Bachchan, (2012) 349 ITR 76 (Bom HC) vii) Cartini India Ltd., (2009) 314 ITR 275…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

…T (A) for AY 2003-04 b) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 37 ITR 1 (SC) c) Metal Box (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC) d) United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) e) Bharat Earth Movers 245 ITR 428 (SC). f) Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561 g) CIT v. Vinitec Corpn. (P) Ltd. : 278 ITR 337 (Del.) h) National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT : 98 ITD 278 (Hyd. ITAT) 26.3.9 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. 312 ITR 254 has held that:- “21. In conclusion, we may state that in order to find out if an expenditure is deductible the…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5659/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…he assessee to file a return under section 139 or in response to notice under section 148 or on account of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 5.1.4 In the case of CIT vs Kelvinator India reported at 320 ITR 561 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court reported at 133 Taxman 433 wherein it had been held that a mere change of opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings under section 147. The Apex Court held that "after 01.04.1989, the Assessing Officer had the power to r…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5658/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…he assessee to file a return under section 139 or in response to notice under section 148 or on account of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 5.1.4 In the case of CIT vs Kelvinator India reported at 320 ITR 561 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court reported at 133 Taxman 433 wherein it had been held that a mere change of opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings under section 147. The Apex Court held that "after 01.04.1989, the Assessing Officer had the power to r…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5657/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…he assessee to file a return under section 139 or in response to notice under section 148 or on account of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 5.1.4 In the case of CIT vs Kelvinator India reported at 320 ITR 561 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court reported at 133 Taxman 433 wherein it had been held that a mere change of opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings under section 147. The Apex Court held that "after 01.04.1989, the Assessing Officer had the power to r…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5656/MUM/2014[2005-006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2005-006

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…he assessee to file a return under section 139 or in response to notice under section 148 or on account of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 5.1.4 In the case of CIT vs Kelvinator India reported at 320 ITR 561 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court reported at 133 Taxman 433 wherein it had been held that a mere change of opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings under section 147. The Apex Court held that "after 01.04.1989, the Assessing Officer had the power to r…

Luminant Investments Ltd ( Formelry Known As Luminant Investments P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1084/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Luminant Investments Ltd., Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Radha Bhavan, 1St Floor, Tax, Central Circle-40, 121, Nagindas Master Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai 400 023 Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaacl 0834 A .. Appellant Respondent

Section 11(4)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…ere is no discussion in the assessment order does not mean there is no application of mind. 6. Full Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), wherein it is held as under:- “On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re- opening could be done under above two conditions and fulfillment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back assessment,…

Archway Investment Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5829/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Archway Investment Co. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Neville House, J. N. Heredia Ward 2 (1) (1), Aayakar Bhavan, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 01 Mumbai Pan: Aaaca 3507H Q .. Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 73

…information was filed by the assessee in lieu of questionnaire raised by the AO. In such circumstances, we are of the view that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein it is held that as under:- “After the amendment the Assessing Officer has to have reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment, but this does not imply that the Assessing Officer can reopen an assessment on mere change of opinion. The concept of change of opinion must be treated as an inbuilt test to check the abuse of p…

Smt. Menka Radhu, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1905/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2005-06 Smt. Menka Radhu, Ito, Ward 15(1), D-828, New Friends Colony, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi – 110 025 (Pan: Aahpr4503N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. SANKALPA SHARMA, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. P. DAM KANUNJNA, SR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54E

…ngible material came into the hands of the AO when reasons were recorded and it is a case of change of opinion, which is not permissible, in view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), therefore, he requested that the orders of the authorities below be set aside and the reassessment proceedings as initiated be held as illegal and the same may be quashed. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that lower authorities have passed a well reasoned order on the basis of the documenta…

M/S Kisan Gramin Bhandaran vs. ITO

Appeal is allowed

ITA 604/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O. P, Kant Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kisan Gramin Bhandaran, Vs. Ito, Asalatpur Jarai, Chandausi, Chandausi (Up) (Up) (Pan: Aaifk1137C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Department By: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18 .04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 27:06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Ground That The Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Justified In Upholding Rental Income Received On Letting Out Warehouses Under The Head “Income From House Property” Against The Business Income Shown By The Assessee. 2. Heard & Considered The Arguments Advanced By The Parties In View Of Orders Of The Authorities Below, Material Available On Record & The Decisions Relied Upon. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee, A Partnership Firm Had Disclosed Rental Income Of Rs.8,11,046 As Business Income In Its Profit & Loss Account & Net Income Of Rs.2,325 Was Shown As Business Income After

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…was not valid as it was based on change of opinion only. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) – 256 ITR 1 upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) – 320 ITR 561 (SC) holding that reopening is not permissible on the basis of change of opinion and if notice under sec. 148 is issued without the jurisdictional foundation available under sec. 147 of the Act, the notice and subsequent proceedings will be invalid. 5. On merit, the Learned AR submitted that the issue raised is fully covered in favour of the ass…