New Delhithrough:mr. Arunkhatrti,Advocate v. Respondentnbcc Ltd.through:none.withita 425/2017+

$-3,4*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 397/2017 + PR. COMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX-6, Appellant NEW DELHIThrough:Mr. ArunKhatrti,Advocate. versus RespondentNBCC LTD.Through:None.WITHITA 425/2017+ PR. COMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX-6, NEWDELHI,u""fThrough:Mr. ArunKhatrti,Advocate.versus NBCCLTD. Respondent Through:None. CORAM: JUSTICES.MURALIDHARJUSTICEPRATHIBAM. SINGH ORDER11.07.2017 0/„ CM APPL.No- 22436/2017(Exemption)in TTA AlSlim 1. Allowed,subjectto alljustexceptions. CM APPL.Nn- 22437/2017(delavin re-filinp)in TTA 42512011 2. Forthe reasonsstatedin the application,the delay in re-filingthis appeal Signature Not Verified is condoned.The applicationisdisposedof. TTA .197/2017 & TTA 425/2017 3. These two appealsby the Revenue are directedagainstthe order datedOctober,2016 passedby the IncomeTax AppellateTribunal(TTAT')in CO No. 146/Del/2012and ITA No. 1559/Del/2013for the AssessmentYear ('AY') 2003-04. 4. The Revenueis aggrievedthatthe ITAT has allowedthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Assesseeand heldthatthe re-openingofthe assessmentfor theAY in questionunderSection147 ofthe Actwas badin law. 5. The ITAT has in the impugnedorder in para 4.1, after setting out thereasonsfor re-openingofthe assessment,observedas under: "4.1. A perusalofthe above reasons demonstratethat the original assessment was completed u/s143(3)ofthe IncomeTax Act, 1961 (the Act) andthe assessmentis reopened beyond the period offour and there is no freshmaterial years tangiblewith the AssessingOfficer(A.O.)based on whichthe reasonsfor reopeninghave been recorded.TheA.O. states that on a perusal of records of theassessee,he observedthatthe assesseehas debitedRs.3,12,66,000/- as uncertified value of work.Such reopening,in the absence of fresh tangiblematerialis notpermittedin law." 6". Learnedcounselfor the Revenuehas not been able to disputethat therewas no freshmaterialtotheof the assessment tangible justify re-openingwhich, in the first place, took place under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thestatementofaccounts,balancesheetetc. were alreadyavailablewiththe AO when the assessmenttookplacein the first instance.The reasonsrecorded for re-openingof the assessmentmerely proceededto further analysethesame documentsto arriveat adifferentconclusion.Clearly,therefore,thiswasacaseofchangeofopinionwithno fireshtangiblematerial. 7. Given the settledlegal position,the Court is unable to find any legalinfirmityin the conclusionarrivedat by the ITAT. No substantialquestionof law arises. 8. Theseappealsare, accordingly,dismissed S.MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. JULY 11,2017 j