Itta/150/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv v. Musaddilal And Sons

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.150 OF 2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-IVHyderabad. ..... Appellant AND Musaddilal & Sons, 5-9-87/2 & 3, Basheerbagh,Hyderabad. .....Respondent The Court made the following : JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following suggested question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in setting aside the order passedunder Sec. 147 read Sec. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? This appeal is directed against the judgment and orderof the learned Tribunal dated 06.07.2012 in relation to theassessment year 2004-2005. By the impugned judgmentand order, reassessment has been set aside. The learnedTribunal, on fact-finding has held as follows: i)Notice under Sec. 147 was issued afterexpiry of four years from the date of originalassessment orderexpiry of four years from the date of originalassessment order ii) The assessee disclosed all the materials and produced all the books of accounts alongwith original records and claimed deductionunder Sec. 80 HHC(3)(b) of the Income TaxAct and such deduction is allowed.with original records and claimed deductionunder Sec. 80 HHC(3)(b) of the Income TaxAct and such deduction is allowed. iii)That it is ground of mere change of opinion Learned Tribunal on fact-finding found that there wasno failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing all thematerial information and documents and, therefore, theinvocation of Sec. 148 was totally unjustified. It was alsoheld by the learned Tribunal on appreciation of facts that it iscase of change of opinion. It is settled position of law that onthe ground of mere change of opinion, no reassessmentproceedings can be initiated. Even the notice for reopeningthe assessment is issued beyond the expiry of four years, inthe absence of any failure on the part of the assessee todisclose the material. Therefore, we hold that the Tribunalhas rightly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and we do not see any grounds to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No orderas to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending if any, shallalso stand closed. ______________________ Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. June 28, 2013MAS __________G.Rohini, J.