Itxa/1352/2016 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 14 v. Sbi Fund Management Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1352 OF 2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-14 .. Appellant v/s. M/s. SBI Fund Management Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant None for the respondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J. P.C. DATED : 30[th] JANUARY, 2019 1.The Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) raising following questionfor our consideration :- “(i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Tribunal is correct in confirming the order of CIT(A) andsetting aside the reopening of assessment made under Section147 of the Act on the ground that there was no material onrecord to justify the reopening of assessment?” 2.Learned Counsel for the Revenue fairly pointed out that the issue in the present appeal is identical to one arising in Income Tax Appeal No. 1138 of 2016, which appeal in turn arises from the same judgmentof the Tribunal which is impugned in this appeal. The Income TaxAppeal No..1138 of 2016 was dismissed on 9[th] January, 2019 makingfollowing observations :- “2.The issue pertains to validity of reopening of assessment.The in the impugned judgment noted that the ground on whichthe notice on reopening the assessment was passed, was examinedduring the original scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal notedthat the Assessing Officer had carried out a full enquiry withrespect to the question of prior period expenditure. The Assesseehad supplied full details and only thereupon the assessment orderunder Section 143(3) was passed. That being the position, theTribunal was of the opinion that the notice of re-opening theassessment was based on a change of opinion. 3.We are in agreement with the view of the Tribunal. Sincethe issue was examined by the Assessing Officer during theoriginal scrutiny assessment, again resorting to reassessment onsuch a ground was only impermissible. In the result, the Appealis dismissed.” 3.In the result, this appeal is also dismissed. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)