ITO, Theni V. R.Muthulakshmi, Theni

ITA 1720/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4830 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I T.A. NO. 172 0 /MDS/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 1 0 - 1 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1 , THENI. VS. SMT. R. MUTHULAKSHMI, L1 - 54, HOUSING BOARD, MULLAI NAGAR, ARANMANAIPUDUR, THENI. [PAN:A MQPM2861D ] ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS , J CIT / RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 09 . 0 2 .201 7 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 27 . 0 4 .201 7 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1 , MADURAI DATED 10. 0 3 .2016 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 1 1 . THE REVENU E HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CANCELLING THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESS MENT IS INVALID AND I.T.A. NO . 1720 /M/ 16 2 INCORRECT AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147. THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIED CREDITORS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.54,36,913/ - ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2.1 THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SOME TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT U / S 148 AND MERE LY FOR CONDUCTING ENQUIRIES OR VERIFICATION THE ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE REOPENED. THE CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED ASSESSMENT U / S 147 OF THE ACT WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 4 YEARS AND NOT UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 147 O F THE ACT. THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHENNAI IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS TUBE INVESTMENTS OF INDIA LTD (133 ITO 79) HAS HELD 'WHAT IS NECESSARY TO RE - OPEN AN ASSESSMENT IS NOT FINAL VERDICT BUT A PRIMA FACIE REASON'. 3. FOR THESE, AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) MAY BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. T HE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FILED LATE BY ONE DAY BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR HAS SUBMIT TED THAT SINCE THE RECORDS OF THE CASE WAS INADVERTENTLY GOT MIXED UP WITH SCRUTINY FILES AND THEREFORE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN TIME AND PLEADED THAT THE SHORT DELAY MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED . SINCE THE REVENUE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NO T FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF ONE DAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, DERIVING H ER INCOME FROM SALE OF CHICKEN. THE ASSESSEE FILED H ER RETURN OF INCOME ON 30 .0 9 .2011 ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF . 2,02,430 / - AND .1,33,650/ - AS HER AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND PAID SELF ASSESSMENT TAX OF .2,920/ - . THE RETURN I.T.A. NO . 1720 /M/ 16 3 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT I N SHORT]. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT THERE WAS AIR INFORMATION EXISTING IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE TRANSACTIONS IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES TO THE TUNE OF .1,07,16,523/ - . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT O N RECORD THE ABOVE TRANSACTION IN THE RETURN FILED BY HER. THE INCOME EMBEDDED IN THE ABOVE CASH TRANSACTIONS APPEARED TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 04.10.2012 . THE ASSESSEE VIDE HER LETTER FILED ON 14.06.2013, REQUESTED TO TREAT THE RETURN ALREADY FILED AS THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 14.06.2013 . THE ASSESSEE S AR PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER DETAILS A CALLED FOR. AFTER VERIFICATION OF DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 28.03.2014 BY ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT . 56,3 0,370/ - . 4 . THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT BY OBSERV ING AS UNDER: 3 .2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE REPRESENTATIVE. ADMITTEDLY, THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED U/S. 143(1) AND THE I.T.A. NO . 1720 /M/ 16 4 TIME LIMIT FOR SELECTING THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) EXPIRED ON 30.09.2012. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.148 ON 04.10.2012 AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. AS SEEN FROM THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE FOL LOWING TWO GROUNDS: - (I) THE APPELLANT ACQUIRED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR RS.1,07,16,523/ - WHEREAS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WAS ADMITTED ONLY AT RS.54.36,913/ - . (II) THE APPELLANT CLAIMED TO HAVE RAISE FUNDS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES FOR THE ABOVE INVESTMENT WHICH REQUIRED THOROUGH VERIFICATION. AS FAR AS THE FIRST POINT IS CONCERNED, THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY FILED A LETTER DATED 16.08.2012 TO DESIGNATED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR AIR EXPLAINING THAT THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH SHRI A.G.RAJ A PURCHASED ONE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR RS.1,07,16,523/ - ON 10.03.2010 AND THE HALF SHARE INVESTMENT BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT WAS ALREADY ADMITTED IN THE RETURN. OF INCOME FILED BY HER. ALONGWITH THE ABOVE LETTER, THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO ATTACHED COPY OF A CKNOWLEDGEMENT OF IT RETURN FILED, COPY OF PURCHASE DEED AND COPY OF STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME. ALL THESE ENCLOSURES ALONGWITH THE ASSESSEE'S LETTER DATED 16.08.2012 WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE DESIGNATED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR AIR BY LETT ER DATED 24.08.2012. IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORDS AS TO WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED THIS LETTER ALONG WITH ENCLOSURES. IF THE LETTER HAD BEEN RECEIVED BEFORE 30.09.2012, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE SELECTED THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S.143(2) ON OR BEFORE 30.09.2012 WHEREAS HE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.148 ON 04.10,2012 AFTER RECORDING THE INCORRECT REASONS. THE FIRST REASON IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT IN AS MUCH AS THE APPELLANT PAID ONLY RS.54,36,913/ - TOWARDS PURCHASE OF PROP ERTY ON ACCOUNT OF 50% OF SHARE IN THE PROPERTY BELONGING TO HER WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH THE LETTER DATED 24,08.2012. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT T HE APPELLANT DID NOT DISCLOSE 50% OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND ASSESSMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REOPENED ON THIS GROUND THE NEXT GROUND ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT IS FOR THE PURP OSE OF VERIFYING THE LOANS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT FOR MEETING THE COST OF INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. EVEN THOUGH THE RETURN WAS ACCEPTED U/S.143(1). THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE SOME TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT U/S.148 AND MERELY FOR CONDUCTING ENQUIRIES OR VERIFICATION THE ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE REOPENED U/S 148. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT NOTICE U/S 148 COULD NOT BE ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING VERIFICATION OR MAKING ROVING ENQUIRIES UNLESS THERE IS SOME TANGIBLE MATERIAL A T THE TIME OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT TO FORM A BELIEF THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE I.T.A. NO . 1720 /M/ 16 5 ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY STATE THAT THE FUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT REQUIRES THOROUGH VERIFICATION WHICH COULD NO T BE THE GROUND FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I FIND THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS INVALID AND INCORRECT AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.147. I THEREFORE, CANCEL THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS I HAVE CANCE LLED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THERE IS NO NECESSITY TO DEAL WITH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ON MERITS AS THEY HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 5 . ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND CHALLENGED THE CANCELL ATION OF REASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON ACCOUNT OF A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIED CREDITORS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT WITHIN THE PERIOD FOUR YEARS AND NOT UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. TUBE INVESTMENTS OF INDIA LTD. 133 ITD 79, THE LD. DR H AS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE REVERSED AND DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. 1 DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, RPAD ON RECORD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 24.08.2016 . HO WEVER, AS PER ADJOURNMENT PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 17.08.2016, THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 23.11.2016 . ON THIS DAY ALSO, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 09.02.2017 BY THE BENCH . WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 09.02.2017 ALSO NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY I.T.A. NO . 1720 /M/ 16 6 ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE ARE GIVEN, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COME FORWARD TO APPEAR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. HENCE, WE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING TO THE LD. DR. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE TH ROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ACCEPTING THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS DONE. SINCE THE CURSORY READING OF THE R ETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE INCOME EMBEDDED IN THE SAID TRANSACTIONS REPORTED IN AIR AS WELL AS INCOME ADMITTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ARE ONE AND THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE INCOME EMBEDDED IN THE ABOVE CASH TRANSACTIONS APPEARED TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FILED ALL THE DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY HIM. AFTER VERIFICATION OF DETAILS, THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED BY MAKING VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE CREDITORS AS WELL AS DETAILS IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED BY I.T.A. NO . 1720 /M/ 16 7 THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, WHO HAS CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. 6.1 IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL, IF THERE IS A PRIMA FACIE CAUSE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE CAN FORM THE OPINION THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. AFTER RECORDING REASONS FOR REOP ENING OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE WORD REASON IN THE PHRASE REASON TO BELIEVE WOULD MEAN CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION. IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS A CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION TO KNOW OR SUPPOSE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, ACTION UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT CAN BE TAKEN. BUT OBVIOUSLY, THERE SHOULD BE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON WHICH A REASONABLE MAN COULD HAVE FORMED A REQUISITE BELIEF. WHETHER THIS MATERIAL(S) WOULD CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THE ESCAPEMENT OF I NCOME IS NOT THE CONCERN AT THAT PARTICULAR STAGE. SO WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THE SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON OBJECTIVE MATERIAL EVIDENCE. IN THE GIVEN CASE, ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 16.09.2008 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE REASON FOR REOPENING WAS RECORDED AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 6. 2 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE NO TANGIBLE FRESH MATERIAL FOR THE REASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. AS SEEN FROM THE REASONS RECORDED I.T.A. NO . 1720 /M/ 16 8 WHICH GIVES A CLEAR PICTURE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GOT MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO FORM HIS OPINION THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THAT IS WHY HE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE AC T. THERE CANNOT BE TWO OPINIONS. AT THAT POINT OF TIME OF REOPENING WHEN THE REASONS ARE RECORDED AFTER FORMING OPINION OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS ONLY RELEVANT. HENCE, THE PLEA OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) . UNDER SECTION 147, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN EITHER ASSESS OR RE - ASSESS BUT FOR TAKING ACTION THERE UNDER, HE HAS TO RECORD REASONS THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT IS ALSO MANDATED BY SECTION 148(2) TO RECORD REASONS IN WRITING. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 ARE FURTHER SUBJECT TO SECTIONS 148,149,150,151,152 AND 153. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE REQUIRED TO DECIDE THE LIMITED ISSUE REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS UNDERTAKEN WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. IN THIS CASE, MOREOVER, THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS NOT DONE. IN CASE, (I) INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS BEEN UNDER ASSESSED; OR (II) SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT TOO LOW RATE; OR (III) SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN MADE THE SUBJECTIVE OF EXCESS RELIEF UNDER THIS ACT; OR (IV) EXCESSIVE LOSS OR DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE UNDER THIS ACT HAS BEEN COMPUTED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD HAVE VALID COGNIZANCE U NDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, I.T.A. NO . 1720 /M/ 16 9 THE DISCREPANCY NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ONLY BE POINTED OUT THAT DUE DILIGENT OF ASSESSING OFFICER. AS SUCH, THE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS IT SELF CANNOT CONSTITUTE FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. BEING SO, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THIS FACT CONFERS JURISDICTION ON THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. THE POWER UNDER SECTION 147 TO RE - ASSESS THE INCOME POST 1ST APRIL, 1989 ARE MUCH WIDER THAN THESE USED TO BE BEFORE. BUT STILL THE SCHEMATIC INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE FAILING WHICH SECTION 147 WOULD G IVE ARBITRARILY POWERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT ON THE POWER TO AN ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN ANY AND EVERY ASSES SMENT ORDER WHICH WOULD SIMPLY AMOUNT TO A REVIEW. THE CONCEPT CHANGE OF OPINION IS AN IN - BUILT TEST TO CHECK THE ABUSE OF POWER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION WHICH, CANNOT BE PER SE A REASON TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. HENC E, THE REOPENING IS HELD TO BE VALID. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO BRING ALL THE FACTS TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND ONLY JUST FILING OF DOCUMENTS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT IS NOT ENOUGH AND S HE SHOULD BE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALL NECESSARY MATERIAL. MOREOVER , IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. TUBE INVESTMENTS OF INDIA LTD. 133 ITD 79 (TM), THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS I.T.A. NO . 1720 /M/ 16 10 CATEGORICALLY HEL D THAT WHAT IS NECESSARY TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT IS NOT FINAL VERDICT BUT A PRIMA FACIE REASON. 6. 3 UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE IS VALID AND THEREFORE, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS UPHELD. THU S, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 27 TH APRIL , 201 7 AT CHENNAI. S D/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 27 . 0 4 .201 7 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.