DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1202/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65770 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 05-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK SEHGAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS RANO JAIN CAS
• Keywords: Depreciation; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1202/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1202/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2001-02 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 08, NEW DELHI VS. M/S MULTIPLEX TRADING & INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD., 11, BABAR LANE, BENGALI MARKET, NEW DELHI (PAN/GIR NO. : AAACM7597F) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SH. VED JAIN & MRS. RANO JAIN, CAS DEPARTMENT BY : SH. DEEPAK SEHGAL, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 23.12. 2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING R ELIEF OF ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF ` 55,15,000/- MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURC ES. II) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-II, NEW DEL HI HAS ERRED AS HE HELD THAT INITIATING OF PROCEEDING U/S . 147 R.W. 148 ARE NOT AS PER THE CONDITION AND PROCEDURE PRES CRIBED IN THE ACT AND THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIA TED BY ITA NO. 1202/DEL/2011 2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 148 ARE ILLEGAL AS THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR AND THE ISSUE IN QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN DIS CUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(2). III)(A) THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-II, NEW DELHI IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON F ACTS. (B) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AME ND ANY / ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURS E OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. IN THIS CASE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ON TH E BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING OF TH E DEPARTMENT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS OBTAINED THE ACCOMMODATION CRE DIT ENTRIES AS A BENEFICIARY FROM THE ENTRY OPERATOR. THE ASSESSME NT FOR A.Y. 2001- 02 AND WAS REOPENED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT AND A NOTI CE TO THAT EFFECT WAS ISSUED ON THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE WAS FURTHER ASKED TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TR ANSACTIONS RELATING THE CASH CREDITS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPEC T OF WHOM INFORMATION HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATIO N WING. ASSESSEES SUBMISSION IN THIS REGARD WAS AS UNDER:- ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS O F ASSESSEE AND COPY OF A/C OF RICHIE RICH OVERSEAS PV T. LTD. IN ASSESSEES BOOK IS RECORDED. IT IS SUBMITTED T HAT ALL THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM RICHIE RICH OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. WERE REFUNDED TO THEM THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYE E CHEQUES DURING F.Y. 2000-01 (A.Y. 2001-02) ITSELF A ND AT YEAR END I.E. 31.3.2001 OUTSTANDING BALANCE AS NIL. NO SHARE WAS ALLOTTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO RICHIE RICH O VERSEAS ITA NO. 1202/DEL/2011 3 PVT. LTD. NO DIRECTOR OR THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS ARE INTE RESTED IN RICHIE RICH OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. IN THIS WE SUBMIT FOLLOWING:- - COPY OF A/C OF RICHIE RICH IN ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. - BANK STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD SHOWING TRANSACTIONS WITH RICHIE RICH. - CONFIRMATION OF RICHIE RICH OBTAINED SOMETIME AFTE R END OF F.Y. 2000-01 (A.Y. 2001-02) THE CREDIT OF RICHIE RICH WAS EXAMINED DURING INC OME TAX PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) BY THEN ASSESSING OFFICER AND INFLOW OF ` 1.07 CRORES FROM RICHIE RICH WAS EXAMINED BY HIM AND MENTIONED IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3 ) OF I.T. ACT. COPY OF ORDER U/S. 143(3) FOR A.Y. 2001 -02 IS ENCLOSED. THE CREDIT PERTAINED TO A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 6-7 Y EARS. THE AMOUNT WAS REPAID MORE THAN 6 YEARS AGO AND AFTER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO DEALING WITH THE SAID PART Y. HOWEVER, THE CONFIRMATION OBTAINED THEN IS ENCLOSED. 3.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH T HE ABOVE EXPLANATION. HE HELD THAT THE ABOVE EXPLANATION TE NDERED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT TENABLE. HE NOTED THAT NO CONFIRMATION IN THE CURRENT DATE HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. BESID ES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE BANK STATEMENT OF M/S RICHIE RICH OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. ITS TAX RETURN, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BA LANCE SHEET FOR THE ITA NO. 1202/DEL/2011 4 SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED. ASS ESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT TH E SAID CREDIT ENTRIES WERE EXAMINED IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE IMPUGNED RE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ASSES SEE HAS OBLIGED IN LAW TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM U/S. 68 OF THE A CT AFRESH IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE ADDITION OF ` 55, 15,000/- BEING CREDIT RECEIVED FROM RICHIE RICH OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE I. T. ACT. HE OBSERVED THAT DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS SESSING OFFICER ISSUED DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE. HE FURTHER OBSERV ED THAT THE DETAILED REPLY IN THIS REGARD WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE VID E LETTER DATED 12.12.2003. ATTENTION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (A) WAS FURTHER DRAWN TO THE CONFIRMATION FROM RICHIE R ICH, COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF RICHIE RICH AND COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)S ATTENTION WAS FUR THER DRAWN TO THE AUDIT REPORT WHEREBY DETAIL OF ALL LOANS ARE AP PEARING. FROM THIS LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OPINED THAT THE AB OVE ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT HAD A CLEAR AND DETAILED OCCASION TO CONSIDER THIS ISSUE WHICH HAS NOW BEEN MADE SUBJECT MATTER OF REASSESSMENT. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCES ON THE S AME ISSUE:- (I) DETAILS OF UNSECURED LOANS WITH CONFIRMATIONS. (II) DETAILS PERTAINING TO M/S RICHIE RICH OVERSEAS ( P) LTD. WITH CONFIRMATION. ITA NO. 1202/DEL/2011 5 (III) COPY OF ITR, LEDGER ACCOUNT ETC. (IV) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EVEN ISSUED SUMMONS TO ONE M/S MAHAN ENTERPRISES WHO FILED THE RESPONSE DATED 18.12.2003 REGARDING THE SAME TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S RICHIE RICH. 4.1 LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) FURTHER NOT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS AGAIN F ILED THE FOLLOWING:- (I) COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S RICHIE RICH OVERSEAS IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS. (II) BANK STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD SHOWING TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S RICHIE RICH. (III) CONFIRMATION OF M/S RICHIE RICH OBTAINED DURING F.Y. 2000-01. 4.2 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (A) FOUND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ADDRE SSED THE ISSUE PROPERLY. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IGNORED THE VALUE OF EVIDENC ES SUBMITTED AND HAS TAKEN UNPRECEDENTED VIEW THAT SECTION 68 THE AS SESSEE IS OBLIGED TO FILE FRESH CONFIRMATION AND DISCHARGE THE ONUS AF RESH. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) REFERRED TO VARIOUS C ASE LAWS REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) DIRECTED THAT THE ADDITION OF ` 55,1 5,000/- IN THIS REGARD WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 1202/DEL/2011 6 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. WE CAN GAINFU LLY REFER HERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 WHICH READ AS UNDER:- INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT - 147. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 153, ASSESS OR REASSE SS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS E SCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENT LY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, OR RECOMPUTE THE LOSS OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE, AS T HE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED (HEREAFTER IN THI S SECTION AND IN SECTIONS 148 TO 153 REFERRED TO AS THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR). PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER T HE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION(1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISC LOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, FO R THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR.' ITA NO. 1202/DEL/2011 7 6.1 FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS, REOPENING CAN BE DONE ONLY IF THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY REASONS OF FAILURE ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE FIND THAT I N THIS CASE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. 6.2 WE FURTHER NOTE THAT NO FRESH MATERIAL HAS BEEN RELIED UPON IN THIS CASE FOR REOPENING. THE REOPENING IS BASED UPON THE MATERIALS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINA L RETURN. THE REASONS RECORDED ALSO DO NO CONTAIN THE ALLEGATION THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTS. THUS, WE FIND THAT PROVISO TO SECTION 147 IS CLEARLY APPL ICABLE IN THIS CASE. 7. IN THIS REGARD, WE ALSO REFER THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF WEL INTERT RADE P. LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. ITO (308 ITR 22). IN THIS CASE IT WAS H ELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ARE INVOKED AFTER THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT A SSESSMENT YEAR, IN ADDITION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING REASON T O BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT MUST ALSO BE ESTABLISHED AS A FACT THAT SUCH ESCAPEMENT OF ASSES SMENT HAS BEEN OCCASIONED BY EITHER THE ASSESSEE FAILING TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139, ETC. OR BY REASON OF FAILURE ON THE PA RT OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSAR Y FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ITA NO. 1202/DEL/2011 8 8. WE FURTHER FIND THAT HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. VS. C.I.T. & AN R. (308 ITR 38) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, CAN BE TAKEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY IF ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO T AX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REAS ON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE (A) TO MAKE A R ETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SE CTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148, OR (II) TO DISCLOSE FUL LY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, FOR TH AT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 CARVED OUT AN EX CEPTION FROM THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147. IF A CASE WERE TO FALL WITHIN THE PROVISO, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS COVERED UNDER TH E MAIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 WOULD NOT BE MATERIAL. ON CE THE EXCEPTION CARVED OUT BY THE PROVISO CAME INTO PLAY, THE CASE WOULD FALL OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF SECTION 147. HOWE VER, NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN UNDER SECTION 147 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IF THE CONDITIONS THAT (A) AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SEC TION 143 OF THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSME NT YEAR, AND (B) UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCA PED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF TH E FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE : (I) TO MAKE A RETURN UN DER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTIO N (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148, OR (II) TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND T RULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSME NT YEAR, ARE SATISFIED. MERELY HAVING REASON TO BELIEVE THAT I NCOME HAD ITA NO. 1202/DEL/2011 9 ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REOPEN ASSE SSMENTS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS. THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME MUST ALSO BE OCCASIONED BY THE FAILURE ON THE PART O F THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY. THIS IS A NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR OVERCOMING THE BAR SET BY T HE PROVISO TO SECTION 147. IF THIS CONDITION IS NOT SATISFIED, THE BAR WOULD OPERATE AND NO ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 COULD BE TA KEN. 9. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING IN THIS REGARD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN THIS REGARD AND THE DETAILED REPLY TO WHICH WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE CONFORMATION FROM M/S RICHIE RICH, COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, INCOME TAX RETURN OF M/S RI CHIE RICH AND COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS FURTHER FOUND TH AT AUDIT REPORT IN THIS CASE CONTAINED THE DETAIL OF ALL LOANS ARE AP PEARING. FROM THIS WE AGREE WITH THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) THA T THE ABOVE DULY ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT HAD A CLEAR AND DETAILED OCCASION TO CONSIDER THIS ISSUE WHICH HAS NOW BEEN MADE SUBJECT MATTER OF REASSESSMENT. 10. IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS CLEARLY UNSUSTAINABLE PROPOSITION. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD DULY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF LOAN FROM M/S RICHIE R ICH OVERSEAS (P) LTD. HE HAD ISSUED A DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE IN THI S REGARD WHICH WERE DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD D ULY SUPPLIED THE CONFIRMATION AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENT. THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS ITA NO. 1202/DEL/2011 10 ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT ALL THE REQUISITE MATERIAL WE RE AVAILABLE AND WERE CONSIDERED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. HE HAS HELD THAT IN REASSESSMENT ASSESSEE HAS TO FILE FRESH CONFIRMA TION AND DISCHARGE THE ONUS AFRESH. THIS IS CLEARLY AN UNTENABLE PRO POSITION. THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN OCCASIONED BY FAILURE OF ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL FACTS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. 11. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF FORAMER FRANCE : 264 ITR 566 (SC) WH EREIN IT WAS HELD THAT REASSESSMENT CANNOT BE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION. 12. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. FULL BENCH OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT AN ASSESSMENT CAN NOT BE REOPEN ED ON A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. 13. ON THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND PRECEDENTS, WE HO LD THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION FOR REASSESSMENT IS NOT V ALID. THE PRESENT CASE IS HIT BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE I. T. ACT. FURTHER IT IS A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION OF ASSESSING OFFICER. AC CORDINGLY, WE DO NOT ITA NO. 1202/DEL/2011 11 FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (A), HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/11/2012. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - [ [[ [RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 09/11/2012 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES