The Commissioner Of Income Tax-26 v. Mr.upendra Udai

bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1684 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-26 … Appellant v/s Mr.Upendra Udai … Respondent Mr.Arvind Pinto for the appellant. Mr.P.J. Pardiwalla, senior counsel a/with Mr.Nishant Thakkar and Jas Sanghavi i/by PDS Legal for the respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 2ND APRIL, 2014 P. C. : 1Heard Mr.Pinto, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.Pardiwalla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2Having perused the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and particularly the findings in paragraphs 12 to 14 thereof, we are of the opinion that even if the Assessing Officer was empowered in law to reopen the proceedings, the grounds on which the same have been reopened, have been not found to be justifiable in law. The reasons assigned for reopening, inter-alia, are failure on the part of the assessee to submit complete details about the transaction. The Tribunal found that this is contrary to the factual position, inasmuch as, the assessee had placed everything on record that was required to enable the Assessing Officer to assess his income. The Assessing Officer at that stage assessed it under the head “capital gains”. Now, on the same material but alleging that the assessee failed to disclose the details, the Assessing Officer seeks to reopen the assessment. The Tribunal found that this is nothing but a change of opinion and on the grounds which are untenable in law. The reasons assigned for reopening the assessment are contrary to the factual position. Such findings of the Tribunal do not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal is, therefore, devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)