Shrimal Construction Pvt. Ltd., Jabalpur V. ACIT, Jabalpur

ITA 14/JAB/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1035 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D R LAKHORIYA
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, J.M. AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, A.M. I.T.A.NO. 14/JAB/2012 A.Y. : 2006-07 S HRIMAL CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD., JABALPUR. VS ACIT, 1(1), JABALPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. : AAGCS3760G APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUMIT NEMA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.R. LA K HORIYA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 0 . 0 5 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 3 1 . 0 7 .201 5 O R D E R PER GARASIA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A),JABALPUR, DATED 02.03.2011 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006-07. -: 2: - 2 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3). HOWEVER, DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR THE JOB WORK OF RS. 1,73,22,375/- IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2007, A ND FOR WHICH THE BILLS WERE RAISED IN NEXT ACCOUNTING PERI OD. IN RESPECT OF THIS JOB WORK, THE ASSESSEE THOUGH AS PE R BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENSES BUT NOT ACCOUNTED FOR THE RECEIPT. FOR NOT ACCOUNTING THE JOB WORK, IT WAS IN FORMED THAT THOUGH THE WORK HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT BUT AS THE PAR TY I.E. BINANI CEMENT LIMITED HAD YET TO CERTIFY THIS WORK, THUS IT WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AN D INSTEAD IT WAS ACCOUNTED IN THE NEXT YEAR. THE ASSESSEES S UBMISSION THOUGH WAS AN EXCUSE ONLY BUT EVEN IF IT IS CONSIDE RED, STILL AS PER THE METHOD OF MERCANTILE ACCOUNTING, THE ASSESS EE THEN WAS REQUIRED TO EITHER ACCOUNT FOR THIS JOB WORK AS WORK-IN- PROGRESS OR ELSE SHOULD NOT HAVE CLAIMED THE CORRES PONDING EXPENSES IN THE INCOME ASSESSABLE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THIS WORK HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE BUT HAD NOT DECLARED -: 3: - 3 CORRESPONDING RECEIPT OR THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS. IN S UCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HELD THAT THIS WORK CHARGE OF RS. 1,73,22,375/- WAS ASSESSABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. MOREOVER, IT WAS ALSO REVEALED THAT THE JOB WOR K OF RS. 1,06,33,849/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, BUT IT W AS CLAIMED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ON PERUSAL OF T HE WORK ACCOUNT, IT HAS BEEN SEEN THAT ON THE FIRST DAY OF THIS ACCOUNTING PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE HAS CREATED JOB WOR K ON THE VERY FIRST DAY OF THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD WITHOUT INC URRING ANY EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE ASSESSEE IS LE GALLY BOUND TO DECLARE IT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, BUT BY NO T DISCLOSING, THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME, THEREFORE, 148 NOTICE IS LEGALLY ISSUED. 4. THE MATTER CARRIED TO LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HA S REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. -: 4: - 4 5. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN THE CLOS ING STOCK WAS SHOWN AT RS. 75,000/- AS AGAINST THE FIGURE OF RS. 59 LACS. SIMILARLY, PURCHASE WAS ALSO SHOWN IN FIGURE OF RS. 1,85,43,300/- AS AGAINST THE FIGURE OF LAST YEAR OF RS. 5,16,70,000/-. THUS, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE CLOSING STOCK WAS NOT VALUED PROPERLY. THE CORRECT VALUATION OF CLOSI NG STOCK HAD A MAJOR ROLE IN THE PROFIT RATE. DURING THE YEAR O F ACCOUNT, THE CLAIM OF WAGES WERE FOR RS. 1,83,99,677/- AS AGAINS T LAST YEARS FIGURE OF RS. 18,00,000/-. THE DETAILS OF WAGES PAI D WERE IN ROUND FIGURE I.E. IN HUNDREDS. NO PROPER RECORDS WE RE ALSO MAINTAINED. THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN SUB-CO NTRACT FOR RS. 2,64,89,571/- AS AGAINST THE FIGURE OF LAST YEA R OF RS. 3,19,90,000/-. THIS YEAR THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS ARE LESS COMPARED TO EARLIER YEARS AND SUB CONTRACT GIVEN WA S MORE OR LESS AS THAT OF EARLIER YEAR I.E. IN PROPORTION OF GROSS RECEIPTS. NO PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN FOR SUCH HIGHER PAYMENT OF WAGES EXCEPT THAT ALL EXPENSES ARE FULLY VOUCHED. I T WAS ALSO STATED THAT THIS YEAR MAINLY JOB-WORK WAS UNDERTAKE N. -: 5: - 5 6. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THESE DEFECTS, THE AO MADE A LUMP SUM ADDITION TO THE TRADING RESULTS IN THE ORI GINAL ORDER U/S 143(3). THUS, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED TO MAKE AN ADDITION TO THE RECEIPTS IS A MERE CHANGE OF OPINIO N AND CANNOT BE DONE AS IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ALL TH E VOUCHERS, CLOSING STOCK AND RECEIPTS WERE DULY EXAMINED. NOW THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 READ WITH 147 ON THE SAM E FACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN DETAIL BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) IS BAD IN LAW. TH E 148 NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THA T RECEIPTS HAVE NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR WHILE EXPENSES HAVE BEE N ACCOUNTED FOR. THIS FINDING IS MERELY A CHANGE OF O PINION BECAUSE AS SEEN FROM THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ALL THE RECEIPTS, EXPENSES, CLOSING STOCK WERE DULY VERIFIE D AND THEN BOOK RESULTS WERE REJECTED AND A LUMP SUM ADDITION WAS MADE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED REGARDING VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT THAT A VALIDLY CONCLUDED ASSESSME NT AFTER PROPER ENQUIRY CANNOT BE REOPENED MERELY ON A CHANG E OF OPINION THAT THAT TOO FOR MAKING AN ADDITION TO THE TRADING RESULTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANALYZED IN THE ORI GINAL -: 6: - 6 ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT VALID ITY OF THE REOPENING HAS TO BE DECIDED WITH REFERENCE TO RECOR DING OF REASONS TO JUDGE AS TO WHETHER THERE IS A NEXUS BET WEEN THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF REASONS AND REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HA S ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AFTER THE EXAMI NATION OF THE CASE IN DETAIL AND ASSESSMENT ONCE CONCLUDED CA NNOT BE DISTURBED ON A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. THE LD. AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, BHOPAL VS. FUJISTU OPTEL LIMITED. MOREOVER, HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECI SION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JINDAL PHOT O FILMS LIMITED VS. DY. CIT, (1998) 234 ITR 170 (DEL), AND HELD THAT THE FACT WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER BUT WERE NOT SO DISCOVERED AT THE TIME OF O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT MAY NOT CONSTITUTE A NEW INFORMATION. 7. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE WORK ORDER WITH M/S. BINANI CEMENT LIMITED DATED 27.6.2005, WHICH WAS BEFORE THE AO. ACTUAL WORK EXE CUTED -: 7: - 7 SHALL BE CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF MEASUREMENT AS PER IS- 1200. ALL THE WORKS IN PROGRESS WILL BE JOINTLY MEA SURED B Y THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ENGINEER-IN-CHARGE AND T HE CONTRACTORS AUTHORIZED AGENT PROGRESSIVELY. SUCH MEASUREMENT WILL BE RECORDED BY THE ENGINEER-IN-CHA RGE OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND SIGNED IN TOKEN O F ACCEPTANCE BY THE CONTRACTOR. THUS, THE WORK-IN-PRO GRESS CANNOT BE CALCULATED UNLESS IT IS MEASURED BY THE E NGINEER-IN- CHARGE OF THE PROJECT. EVERY YEAR ON 1 ST APRIL THE WORK IS MEASURED BY THE ENGINEER-IN-CHARGE AND THEN THE SAM E IS SHOWN AS REVENUE. THE JOB WORK AND CONTRACT RECEIPT LEDGER ACCOUNT WAS ACCOUNTED FOR A RECEIPT OF RS. 14,20,00 0/-. THE AUDIT REPORT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07SHOWED THAT SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IS MERCANTILE. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS. IN THE DETAILS OF SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, I T WAS STATED THAT THE PROFIT AND LOSS IS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART II AND III OF SCHEDULE VI TO THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND THE PROFIT AND LOSS HAS BEEN FULFILLED THE SAME ACCOUNTING POLICIES, ACCOUNTING STANDARDS FOR PREPA RING A -: 8: - 8 PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THUS, THE AO IS NOT JUSTIF IED IN PASSING THE EX-PARTE ORDER. 8. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE IF THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED, THE GROSS PROFIT WILL BE 15.69 %, WHICH SHOWS THE ABSURDITY OF ADDITION. THE ACCRUAL OF INCOME DEPEND S ON ITS RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE SAME FROM THE PERSON TO WHOM I T HAS RENDERED SERVICES OR SOLD THE GOODS. THE TIMING OF A RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE INCOME GETTING CRYSTALLIZED DEPENDS UPO N THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND OTHER PREV AILING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES . THE REVENUE HAS BEEN RECO GNIZED BY ASSESSEE AS REVENUE IN THE ACCOUNTS AS AND WHEN THE WORK IS MEASURED BY THE PRINCIPLE ENGINEER-IN-CHARGE OF M/S . BINANI CEMENT AS PER CLAUSE 9.2.2.1 OF THE CONTRACT. THUS, WORK-IN- PROGRESS CANNOT BE CALCULATED AND MEASURED UNLESS I T IS MEASURED BY THE ENGINEER-IN-CHARGE OF THE PROJECT. THE LD. SENIOR D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ANUP ENGINEERI NG LIMITED, 247 ITR 457. THE POSITION WAS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. SHOORJI VALLABHDAS AND CO., (1962) 46 ITR 144. -: 9: - 9 9. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT HE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF GODHRA ELECTRICITY CO.LTD., 225 ITR 746 AND IN THE CASE OF HOPE (INDIA ) LIMITED, 238 ITR 740 (CAL). IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 147 DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 10. THE LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO HAS CONSID ERED THE DECISION OF ALA FIRM VS. VS. CIT, 189 ITR 285 (S.C. ). THAT DECISION WAS CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, THIS WILL NOT HELPFUL TO THE DEPA RTMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF VIRUDHUN AGAR COOP. MILK SUPPLY SOCIETY LIMITED VS. CIT, (1990) 183 ITR 545 (MAD) AND THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CLAGGE TT BRACHI CO.LTD. VS. CIT, (1989) 177 ITR 409 (S.C.) AND HELD THAT THE FACTS DISCOVERED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF A SUBSEQUENT YEAR MAY CONSTITUTE THE INFORMATION WITH IN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147(B) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR ITS JOB WORK -: 10: - 10 RECEIPT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHICH WERE ALREADY DISCU SSED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AO AND CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, THE ADDITION WAS MADE. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO NEW MATERIAL AND NO INFORMATION, WHICH HAS COME INTO PO SSESSION OF THE AO. THEREFORE, THIS WILL ALSO NOT HELP TO TH E REVENUE. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 147 AND 148 ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAS COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT THE JOB WORK OF RS. 1,06,3 3,849/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, BUT THE RECEIPT WAS ACCOUN TED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ON PERUSAL OF THE WORK ACC OUNT, IT WAS SEEN THAT ON THE FIRST DAY OF ACCOUNTING PERIOD , THE ASSESSEE HAS CREATED THE JOB WORK ONLY ON FIRST DAY OF ACCOUNT WITHOUT INCURRING ANY EXPENDITURE. IT SHOWS THAT TH E EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF THE WORK IF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE ACCEPTED, THEY HAVE BEEN CLAIMED IN EARLIER YEAR, BUT THE REC EIPTS HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THE AMOUNT OF R S. 1,06,33,849/- PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND TO DISCLOSE ITS IN COME IN THE -: 11: - 11 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, BUT HE HAS NOT DISCLOSED I T. THEREFORE, THE INCOME IS ESCAPED. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THE ME RCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND AS PER THE CONTRACT BETWE EN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. BINANI CEMENT AS PER CLAUSE 9, TH E ACTUAL WORK EXECUTED SHALL BE CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF MEASUREMENT AS PER IS-1200. THE WORK WAS MEASURED B Y INCHARGE ENGINEER ON EVERY 1 ST DAY OF APRIL AND AS PER THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED THE JOB WORK RECEIPT OF RS.1 4,20,000/- IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WE FOUND THAT IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS VERIFIED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS HELD AS UNDE R :- CONSIDERING ALL THE ABOVE FACTS, THE PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS YEAR CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT I S ALSO A FACT THAT THE RATE OF PROFIT SHOWN THIS YEAR BETTER THAN THAT OF EARLIER YEAR. NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED WHICH CAN BE HELD TO BE THE REASON FOR SUCH LOW PROFIT. CONSIDERING ALL THE ABO VE -: 12: - 12 FACTS, A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- IS MADE TO THE TRADING RESULTS. 12. FROM THE ABOVE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE AO HAS FOUN D DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND MADE A LUMP SUM ADDITION IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3). W E FIND THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE GROUND OF RECEIPT, WHICH IS CLEARLY A CHANGE OF OPINION, WHICH CANNOT BE DONE AS IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. ALL THE VOUCHERS, CLO SING STOCKS AND RECEIPTS WERE DULY EXAMINED. NOW THE ISSUANCE O F NOTICE U/S 148 READ WITH SECTION 147 ON THE SAME FACT, WHI CH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) IS BAD IN LAW. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY ACCOUNTED ALL THE EXPENSES. TH IS FINDING IS IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3). THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE GROUND THAT RECEIPTS H AVE NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR WHILE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ACCOUNT ED. THIS FINDING IS CLEARLY A CHANGE OF OPINION. WE FIND THA T VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT THAT A VALIDLY COMPLETE D ASSESSMENT AFTER PROPER INQUIRY CANNOT BE REOPENED MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION THAT TOO FOR MAKING ADDITION OF T RADING -: 13: - 13 RESULT, WHICH HAVE ANALYZED IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE FI9ND THAT JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. FUJISTU OPTEL LIMITED, IN I.T.A.NO.80/2012, WHEREIN HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT AFTER FILING OF THE R ETURN IF THE MATTER WAS SCRUTINIZED AND ON THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS, THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED. ON THE BASIS OF SAME SET OF FACTS, IF THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT I T WAS A CASE OF ESCAPEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEN IT IS A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION AND NOT A CASE FOR RE-ASSESSMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE WAS NO NEW MATERIAL BEFORE AO T O RECORD A FINDING THAT ON THE BASIS OF SOME NEW MATERIAL, HE HAS FORMED AN OPINION THAT IT WAS A CASE OF ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE FACTS TRULY AND RIGH TLY. ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED, THE AO COULD NOT FORM THE OTHER OPINION THAT THE OR IGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND CASE DESERVES TO BE REASSESSED U/S 147(B). THEN IT IS A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION AND IT CANNOT BE THE CASE OF REASSESSMENT AS REQUIR ED U/S 147(B) OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, WE FIND THAT THE PRIN CIPLE IN THE CASE OF JINDAL PHOTO FILMS LIMITED VS. DY. CIT, (19 98) 234 ITR -: 14: - 14 170 (DEL), WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE FACT WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT WERE N OT SO DISCOVERED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT MAY N OT CONSTITUTE A NEW INFORMATION. 13. WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH C OURT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESS MENT, WHICH IS CLEARLY A CHANGE OF OPINION, THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE SAME. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 34 (4) OF I.T.A.T. RULES, BY PUTTING THE COPY OF THE SAME ON NOTICE BOARD ON 31 ST JULY, 2015. SD/- (B. C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 31 ST JULY, 2015. CPU* -: 15: - 15 1331