“change of opinion”

Indian Red Cross Society District Office Singrauli, Singrauli vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 29 & 96/Jab/2023 (A.Y: 2023-24) Indian Red Cross Society Vs. Cit (Exemption), (District Office Bhopal-462016, Singrauli) Ntpc Madhya Pradesh. Hospital, Vidhyanagar, Singrauli-486885. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aabai0508B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Majon Jain. Fca .Ar Revenue By : Shri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)(Cit(E)) Bhopal Denying The Registration U/Sec 12Aa & Approval U/Sec 80G Of The Act.

facts. 2."That the order dated 22/12/2022 passed by the Ld. CIT EXEMPTION declining registration u/s 12AA is only on the basis of change of opinion and contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice. 3. The order is contested in appeal on every cogent grounds

M/S. Premji Valji & Sons (Jewellers) P. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The DCIT, Circle - 2 (1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

verified by the Revenue in two different assessment proceedings as discussed above. Thus, further reopening on same set of facts will amount to change of opinion which is not permissible for initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 3.3 On the contrary, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that ... Accordingly, we are of the view that the action of the Assessing Officer cannot be said that it is based on change of opinion. 4.2 Further, we note that the foundation of initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was the report received from the investigation wing wherein

Nalini Parwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 249/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Nalini Parwani C/O. G.K Automobiles P. Ltd. Opp. Kabir Nagar, Gate No.2. Ring Road-2, Sondongri, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aeqpp5635N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.)

assessment issued by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 27/02/2016, and therefore reopening of assessment being a mere change of opinion was not justified. 2. The Ld lower authorities erred in law and in fact by not disposing the objection raised by appellant regarding non availability ... original assessment proceedings concluded u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and accordingly the same was merely change of opinion which is not permissible under the act. The assessment order may kindly to be set aside. 3. That the Ld. Lower authorities erred in law and in fact

M/S. Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.75/Rjt/2021 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 M/S. Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Plot No.G-557, Vs. Of Income-Tax-1, Gidc Metoda, Rajkot. Kalawad Road, Metoda, Rajkot-360021. Pan: Aadcr1763P

made as observed by the ld. PCIT. As such, the order passed by the AO cannot be held as erroneous on account of change of opinion. 6. However, the learned PCIT rejected the contention of the assessee by observing as under: 12. In the present case, on perusal ... such, when the AO is found to have not verified the aforementioned aspects during the assessment, there is no question of change of opinion as contended by the assessee. Reliance is placed on ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of P.V. Sreenijin

The Surat Peoples Co Operative Bank Ltd., Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.278/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) The Surat People’S Co Operative Vs. The Pcit, Bank Ltd., Surat-1 1, Vasundhara Bhavan, Timliawad, Nanpura, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2885P (Appellant) (Respondent)

that the GST Credit lapse is an allowable expense. Therefore, your honour is saying that it is not an allowable expense is a change of opinion only. It seems that your honour proposing to set aside the assessment order for further inquiry in this matter to find out whether there

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1), Raipur vs. M/S Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.73/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. H. No.11, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aahcs7999A ……""यथ" / Respondent

genuine. The facts as discussed above reveals that the reopening of the case has been done on the basis of mere Change of opinion. No assessment can be reopened on the basis of change of opinion. I rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case ... assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. Therefore, in these circumstances, the reasons in support of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and therefore would be completely without jurisdiction in the present facts. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 27 March 2019 is quashed and set aside

Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vapi

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Parvassa Road, Mota Waghchhipa, Ward – 1, Kila Pardi, Valsad – 396001, Vapi Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arypp2459F (Appellant) (Respondent)

belief. This is supported by Circular No.549 dated 31.10.1989 which clarified that the words “reason to believe” did not mean a change of opinion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 has lucidly explained the power of assessing officer

Sibasankar Sahu, - Deogarh vs. PCIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.217/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sibasankar Sahu, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Arnapurna Store, At: Bania Sahi, Po/Ps: Deogarh Dist-Deogarh-768108 Pan No. :Apeps 1706 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 18.03.2022, Passed In Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1041011837(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 199 Days. It Was The Submission That The Delay Was On Account Of Medical Treatment Of The Assessee’S Father & Assessee’S Wife. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Trading Of Potatoes, Onion & Garlic In The Remote Area Of The District Of Deogarh, Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Was Not Well- Versed In Taxation Issues & On Account Of The Medical Treatment Of The 2 Assessee’S Father As Also The Assessee’S Wife, The Assessee Could Not File

this year on the estimated turnover of Rs.1.79 Cr is not unreasonable. Substituting it with any other income may amount to a mere change of opinion. Moreover, the assessee has availed the benefit of Vivad Se viswas Scheme & has received form no.5 as confirmation as a beneficiary of the scheme

Sunil Pagaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

appreciation of facts and there does neither exist any mistake on record nor ambiguity in the application of the law. A change of opinion or debatable issue is not covered for the initiation of proceedings u/s 154 of the act. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has misinterpreted the case laws relied

M/S Terecom (P) Ltd., Goa vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Panaji.

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

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

disclosed in the Balance Sheet. The reassessment is bad in law, as it amounts to initiating of re-assessment proceedings prompted by mere change of opinion by holding that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is required to be added back to the book profits in view of retrospective ... challenges the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. The contention of the appellant that the re-opening is promoted by mere change of opinion is rejected, it cannot be accepted for the reason that there was no material on record to demonstrate that the Assessing Officer, during the course

The Purshottam Farmers Co.Op Cotton Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd., Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) The Purshottam Farmers Co. Op D.C.I.T., Cotton Ginning & Pressing Society Circle-2(3), Surat, Vs. Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Jahangirpura Gin, Jahangirpura, Majuragate, Surat, Rander, Surat, Gujarat-395009 Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaaat 3000 A Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

deduction. The assessee has neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income rather the disallowance was made on the basis of change of opinion. Mere disallowance in every case would not ipso facto lead to levy of penalty. The Assessing officer levied penalty @ 100% of tax sought