ITO, CHENNAI V. Arunachalam Nachammai, CHENNAI

ITA 198/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8955 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 2(14); 142(1); 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! , '!# BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 198/MDS/2016 ' $ %$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARE 7(1) CHENNAI 600 034 VS. SMT. ARUNACHALAM NACHAMMAI, NEW NO.21, R BLOCK 89, 3 RD MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 040 [PAN AAFPA 6117R] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) &' ( ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. A.V.SREEKANTH, IRS, JCIT *+&' ( ) /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE ( , / DATE OF HEARING : 04-04-2016 -.% ( , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-06-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED A GAINST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-7 , CHENNAI IN ITA NO.66/CIT(A)2014-2015, DT 24.11.2015 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006- 2007 PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 AND 250 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). ITA NO.198/MDS/2016. :- 2 -: 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 2.2 THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT EXPLANATION 2 TO SEC 147 SQUARELY APPLIED TO THE FA CTS OF THE CASE, IN AS MUCH AS IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT EXCES S RELIEF HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, BY TREATING THE IMPUGNED LAND AS AN AGRICULTURAL ONE. 2.3 THE CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE HON'BLE HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF JCIT V KALANITHI MARAN (366 ITR 453) APPRECIATED THE WIDE POWERS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN THE MATTER OF REOPENING, THUS, SUFFICIEN TLY DISTINGUISHING THE HON'BLE APEX COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. KELVINATOR INDIA LTD (320 ITR 561). 3.1 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE CAPITAL GAINS CHARGED ON THE LAND, ON THE GROUND THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND I S AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. 3.2 THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THAT AFTER THE REOPENING WAS QUASHED BY THE CIT(A), THERE WAS NO O RDER SUBSISTING FOR THE CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3.3 THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE HON'BL E MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJAM CHETTIAR MAHA SIVAR ATHRI ARA KATTALAI VS SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSION ER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX (241 ITR 794) HAD LAID DOWN THE RATIO THAT ONCE AN ORDER IS QUASHED, NOTHING REMAIN S THEREAFTER FOR ADJUDICATION. 3.4 THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE CATEGORISATION OF THE LAND BY A GOVERNMENT DEPARTME NT CANNOT BE SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE. 3.5 THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE DECISION S RELIED UPON WERE IN THE CONTEXT TO STAMP DUTY AND H AVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE IMPUGNED ISSUE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS AND FIL ED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.12.2006 WITH TOTAL INCOME OF =71,563/- WITH A GRICULTURAL INCOME ITA NO.198/MDS/2016. :- 3 -: OF =3,500/- AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 03.06.2008 WITH ASSESSED INCOME AT =1,31,434/-. TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS E SCAPEMENT ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT. I N COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED LETTER STATING THAT THE RETURN FILED EARLIER BE TREATED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT AND THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED DETAILS. FURTHER, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE FILED LETTER DATED 05.02.2014 OBJECTING TO THE REOPENING OF ASSE SSMENT WITH JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRI CULTURAL LAND IS NOT WITHIN THE TOWN LIMITS, KISTE IS PAID ON AGRICULTUR AL LAND AND ACTUAL CULTIVATION HAS BEEN PROVED WITH CHITTA AND ADANGAL AND SUPPORTED THE USAGE OF LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE WITH ELECTR ICITY CONSUMPTION FOR DRAWING WATER AND APPLICABILITY OF GUIDELINE VALUE. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO THE FINDINGS OF THE EARLIER ASS ESSMENTS AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ONE ACRE AND 17.5 CENTS OF LAND SITUATED AT KELAMBAKKAM FOR =51,18,300/-AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION A S SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. AS PER THE REGISTRAR, THIRUPORU R, IT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS RESIDENCE, HENCE, IT IS A CAPITAL ASS ET AND NO EXEMPTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ENTIRE SALE TRANSACTION IS SUBJECT TO TAX. THE LD. ASSESSING O FFICER DEALT ON THE ITA NO.198/MDS/2016. :- 4 -: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIONS OF REASSESSMENT AND SUPPO RTING DOCUMENTS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSISTING OF CHITTA, ADINGAL RECEIPT AND SMALL FARMERS FREE ELECTRICITY FOR IRRIGATION OF LAND AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE TO SUBSTANTIATE T HAT IT IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBMITTED CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (VAO) STATING THAT THE POPU LATION OF 2001 CENSUS IS 5167 AND THE LAND IS 8KMS AWAY FROM MUNI CIPAL CORPORATION AND ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 28. 06.1983 AND SOLD ON 29.08.2005 AND HELD THE LAND FOR MORE THAN 22 YE ARS AND PRODUCED PATTA ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, CHE NGALPET AS PUNJAI LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED ON AGRICULTURAL OPER ATIONS AND OFFERED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND FALLS WITH THE DEFINITION OF SEC. 2(14) OF THE ACT. BUT THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT HAS CHANGED TH E CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL TO RESIDENCE AND THE PROCEDURAL O F CLASSIFICATION IS BASED ON THE NATURE OF DRY AND WET LAND. THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ON RE-OPENING OF ASSESSM ENT AND REJECTED THE SAME. ON MERITS, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO D EFENDED THE STAND OF THE REVENUE HAS REFERRED TO THE REGISTRATION DEPART MENT GUIDELINE VALUE BEING RESIDENTIAL AREA AND RELIED ON THE DEC ISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PALLAVARAM GOTHANDARAM VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.1808/MDS/2011, DATED 17.10.2012 AND THE GUIDELINE VALUE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT MENTIONED AS RESIDENTIAL LAND. ITA NO.198/MDS/2016. :- 5 -: WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND TAXED THE SALE CONSIDERATION UNDER CAPITAL GAINS AND WORKED OUT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. AGAINST TH E ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS). 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS RAISED GROUNDS ON THESE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDING U/SEC. 147 AND ADDITION BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ON TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AS RESIDENTIAL LAND AND CALCULATE D CAPITAL GAINS. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED THE GROUNDS A ND REFERRED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH ARE AG AINST THE LAW. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT OBJECTIONS WERE FILED BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING AND RELIED ON T HE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF SOM DUTT BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT (ITAT, KOL) 98 ITD 78, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT CHANGE OF OPINION COMES TO THE RESCUE OF ASSESSEE ONLY WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE OF PERMISSIBLE VIE WS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS. A WRONG APPLICATION OF LAW CA NNOT BE HELD AS PERMISSIBLE VIEW AND THAT CAN ALWAYS BE CHANGED FOR APPRECIATING LAW- REOPENING VALID. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VERIFIED THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS CALLED FOR AND THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2006 AND ITA NO.198/MDS/2016. :- 6 -: DISCLOSED SALE OF LAND =51,18,300/- AND CLAIMED EXE MPTION U/S.2(14)(III) OF THE ACT AND ALSO SUPPORTED HIS G ROUNDS WITH EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, PATTA , KISTE CERTIFICATES FROM VILLAGE PANCHAYAT PRESIDENT AND THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR INFORMATION U/S133(6) OF THE ACT AND ISS UED LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN, KELAMBAKKAM OORATCHI AND CHAIRMAN THIRUP ORUR PANCHAYAT UNION AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DEPUTED INSPECTOR TO CONDUCT ENQUIRY OF THE LAND WITH LOCAL PANCHAYAT AND THE INSPECTOR HAS FILED REPORT DATED 02.06.2008 AND ALSO ANOTHER LETTER DATED 03.06.2008 RECEIVED FROM CHAIRMAN, KELAMBAKKAM PANCHAYAT OFFICER EXPLAINING THAT THE P OPULATION OF MUNICIPALITY IS 5163 AS PER 2001 CENSUS AND DISTANC E OF THE IMPUGNED LAND IS 10 KMS AND THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RE LIED IN HIS ORDER. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VERIFI ED THE RECORDS OF SALE AND FOUND THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT CALLED FOR ANY DETAILS OF ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) OF THE A CT WERE THE LAND ISSUE WAS ALREADY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND WHI LE PASSING THE ORDER AND THE SAME CANNOT BE RE-CONSIDERED WHICH T ANTAMOUNT TO CHANGE OF OPINION AND THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOP ENED ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION AND RELIED ON THE HONBLE APEX CO URT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LIMITED 320 ITR 561 WERE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POWER TO REASSESS BUT NOT TO REVIEW AND ALSO ITA NO.198/MDS/2016. :- 7 -: SUPPORTED WITH ANOTHER APEX COURT DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF ACIT, MUMBAI AND OTHERS VS. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DEAL ERSHIP LIMITED 348 ITR 299 . THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED FOR CHANGE OF OPINION AND CONSIDERED THE RE-ASSESSMENT ARE NOT VALID OBSE RVED AT PARA 8.1 & 8.2 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER:-. 8.1 IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES, CONDUCTING NECESSARY ENQUIRY, OBTAIN ING ADDITIONAL DETAILS FROM THE APPELLANT, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS TAKEN A CONSIDERED VIEW TO ACCEPT THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED. IT IS NOT A CASE WHICH COMES WIT HIN THE AMBIT OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT MENTIONED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PARA 3.5.1.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 8.2 ON THE BASIS OF THE DISCUSSIONS AS ABOVE, AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS KELVINATOR OF INDIA LIMITED (320 ITR 561), I HOLD THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE ARE NOTHING B UT A CHANGE OF OPINION, A REVIEW OF THE MATTER THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DULY CONSIDERED AND DECIDED. AS SUCH, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ARE NOT VALID. THE APPELLAN T'S APPEAL ON THIS GROUND SUCCEEDS. FURTHER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS DEALT ON THE LAST GROUND OF DENIAL OF CLAIM BY THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER BY TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND U/SEC. 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT AND ALLOWED THE GROUND ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE OF USAGE OF LAN D FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE AND PATTA, CHITTA, ADANGAL AND DELETED THE ADDITION AND ALLOWED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY T HE CIT (A)ORDER, THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.198/MDS/2016. :- 8 -: 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ARGU ED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN H OLDING THE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS INVALID, HAS NOT CONSIDE RED THE EXPLANATIONS TO SEC. 147 OF THE ACT AND RELIED ON T HE APEX COURT DECISION OF M/S. KELVINATOR INDIA LTD (SUPRA ) AND FURTHER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN QUASH ING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BUT ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. FURTHER THE GUIDELINE VALUE CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASID E AND THE DECISIONS RELIED IN RESPECT TO STAMP DUTY VALUATION CANNOT BE IGNORED AND PLEADED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) ORDER. 6. CONTRA, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS), PAPER BOOK AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND PRAYED FOR DISMISS ING THE APPEAL. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD, JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED. THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENTION HAS TWO FOLD ARGUMENTS, ONE BEING THE CH ALLENGING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AS INVALID BY THE LD. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND SECOND ISSUE BEING SALE OF LAND AT KELAMBAKKAM VILLAGE. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE LAND AS RESIDENTIAL SUBJECTED TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX WHEREAS LD. COMMISS IONER OF ITA NO.198/MDS/2016. :- 9 -: INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION TREAT ING AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. ON THE FIRST GROUND, THE REVENUE HAS ARGUED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REFERR ED TO THE FINDINGS WHICH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER U/SEC.147 OF THE A CT HAS CONSIDERED. PRECEDING LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED TH E SALE CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSU ED AND RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETED TREATING THE LAND AS NON AGRICULTURAL LAND. BUT PRIME FACIE, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REFERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK FILED WERE OBJECTIONS ARE FILED AGAINST THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAI M THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE AC T HAS DEALT WITH APPLICATION OF MIND AND PASSED THE ORDER AND ALSO R ELIED ON HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION OF GKN DRIVE SHAFTS (INDIA) LTD VS. ITO & OTHERS 259 ITR 19. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER FOR REO PENING OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BASED ON THE JUDICIAL DECIS IONS. NOW, THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A RE BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION OR WITH EXTERNAL INFORMATION. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DEALT ON THE PROVISIONS OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO THE SUBMISSIONS, OBJECTIONS RA ISED BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. PRIME FACIE ISSUE INVOL VES ON THE FIRST GROUND WHETHER LAND FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND U/S.2(14)(III) OF THE ACT AND SUPPORTING OWNERSHIP AND CULTIVATION ITA NO.198/MDS/2016. :- 10 -: DETAILS. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMISSI ONS OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE AND ASSESSMENT RECORD FOUND THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAS VERIFIED THE SAID DISPUTED DETAILS A ND PASSED ORDER AND NOW DUE TO CHANGE OF OPINION, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/SEC. 148 OF THE ACT AND PASSED REASSESSMEN T ORDER. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLA IM THAT THE LAND IS A AGRICULTURAL LAND FILED PAPER BOOK WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME, INCOME TAX RETURN AND SALE DEED AND THE PROPERTY PURCHASE D DATED ON 28.06.1983 REFERRED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AT PAGE 12 OF SALE DEED. SIMILARLY, WHEN THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 29.08 .2005 AT PAGE 11 REFERENCE IS MADE TO AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SAME WAS REGISTERED. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO DEMONSTRATED WITH S UPPORTING COPY OF PATTA, CHITTA, KISTE AND CERTIFICATE FROM PANCHAYAT PRESIDENT. CONSIDERING THE APPARENT FACTS, WE FEEL THAT THE LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED THE SUB MISSIONS, ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED AN D REVENUE COULD NOT GET ANY FRESH INFORMATION TO STATE THAT RE-ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS ARE VALID, WE AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THE ASPECTS OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS CANNOT BE ITA NO.198/MDS/2016. :- 11 -: INITIATED ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. FURTHER, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT SOLE REASON FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT DUE TO RE-CLASS IFICATION OF IMPUGNED LAND PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO MAT ERIAL TO SUGGEST, THE DATE ON WHICH IT WAS RE-CLASSIFIED BY THE STATE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IT IS ALSO PERTAINENT TO MENTION THAT NO ALLEGATIO N ON ANY FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF TRUE AND FULL DISCLOS URE OF MATERIALS OF FACTS AND WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF QUASHING OF RE-ASSESSME NT BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). SINCE, THE RE -ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF IS QUASHED IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ADJUDICATING ON MERIT ON ADDITIONS IS NOT PROPER GROUND. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE , 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI 0 / DATED: 24.06.2016 KV 1 ( *',23 43%, / COPY TO: 1 . &' / APPELLANT 3. 5, () / CIT(A) 5. 389 *',' / DR 2. *+&' / RESPONDENT 4. 5, / CIT 6. 9:$ ; / GF ITA NO.198/MDS/2016. :- 12 -: FURTHER, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT SOLE REASON FOR REO PENING OF ASSESSMENT DUE TO RE-CLASSIFICATION OF IMPUGNED LA ND PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SUGGEST, THE DATE ON WHICH IT WAS RE- CLASSIFIED BY THE STATE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IT IS ALSO PERTAINING TO MENTION THAT NO ALLEGATION ON ANY FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF MATERIALS AN D WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF QUASHING OF RE-ASSESSMENT BY THE LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). SINCE, THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF IS QUASHED IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) ADJUDICATING ON MERIT ON ADDITIONS IS NOT PROPER GROUND. THE APP EAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 198/MDS/2016 IS PARTLY ALLOWED.