Edathuruthykaran Pavoo George, ERnakulam V. ACIT, Kochi

ITA 126/COCH/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Edathuruthykaran Pavoo George, the appellant, who contested the reopening of his income tax assessment for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The reopening was initiated by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a regular assessment under Section 143(3) which had been completed earlier. The primary contention was that the reopening was based on a change of opinion regarding the nature of certain expenses claimed by the appellant, which the Assessing Officer considered as donations rather than sales promotion/advertisement expenses. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and reviewing the case file, concluded that the reopening was unjustified and quashed it, rendering all other arguments on merits academic.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115524 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-12-0000
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2021
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Memberand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member ITA No.126/Coch/2021 (Assessment Year:2010-11) Edathuruthykaran Pavoo George 40/2102, Market Road Ernakulam 682035 Vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle-1(1) Kochi PAN –ABZPG4486E Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Smt. Athira Anil, CA Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 09.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 27.12.2022 O R D E R Per: Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2020-11arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi’s order dated 26.07.2021, passed in case No. CIT(A), Cochi-2/10363/2015-16, involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. We advert to the assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground challenging correctness of the impugned reopening for the reason that the same merely forms a change of opinion as this is an instance of regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act framed on 30.03.2013 which was reopened vide Section 148 notice issued on 21.03.2014. ITA No. 126/Coch/2021 Edathuruthykaran Pavoo George 2 4. Learned DR vehemently argued that the assessee had claimed sales promotion/advertisement expenses which turned out to be mere donations. She further invited our attention to the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons wherein it is noticed that he had merely verified the records already available. This is therefore a clear-cut case of mere change of opinion in light of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). The impugned reopening stands quashed for this precise reason alone. All other pleadings on merits are rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 27 th December, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Cochin, Dated: 27 th December, 2022 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) -NFAC, Delhi 4. The CIT- 5. The DR, ITAT, Cochin 6. Guard File By Order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin n.p.