The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iiamritsar v. Adarsh Kumar Goel.j (Oral

I.T.A. No. 593 of 2008. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 593 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 27, 2008. The Commissioner of Income Tax-IIAmritsar. ---Appellant Versus M/s Bhagat Industrial Corp. Ltd.--Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:Ms. Navender P.K. Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. *** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.J (ORAL) This appeal has been preferred under Section 260 A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar passed in I.T.A. No.60/(ASR)/2006 andC.O. 31 (ASR)/2007 dated 7.11.2007 for the Assessment Year 1997-98,proposing following substantial questions of law :- i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseLd. ITAT was right in law in taking recourse to Rule 27of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 on behalf of theassessee? ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theHon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right inconcluding that A.O. Had failed to assign valid andcogent reasons for reopening the assessment proceedings. iii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theHon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in lawin not considering the fact that the case in question fallunder proviso to Section 147 of the Act.Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in lawin not considering the fact that the case in question fallunder proviso to Section 147 of the Act. iv)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theHon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in lawin holding that the reasons assigned for reopening theassessment proceedings would amount to “change ofopinion” thus not constituting a valid ground to reopenthe assessment proceedings.Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in lawin holding that the reasons assigned for reopening theassessment proceedings would amount to “change ofopinion” thus not constituting a valid ground to reopenthe assessment proceedings. The assessing officer finalised the assessment of the assesseeand thereafter issued notice under Section 148 stating that claim fordepreciation in respect of Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) was not justified,as the assessee had not paid installments of the Effluent Treatment Plant(ETP). The assessee challenged the said findings on the ground that thesame was without any fresh material. The CIT(A) accepted the said pleaand the Tribunal upheld the same. It was observed:- “ In the above view of the matter, in our considered opinion,the assessee is justified in alleging that the reopening of the assessmentcompleted on the assessee after four years from the end of the relevantassessment year, is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the A.O. Hasnot established on record any failure or omission on the part of the assesseeto disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment forthat year. It is also illegal for the reason that such reopening was only byway of a mere change of opinion of the A.O. on the same set of facts aspresent at the time of the original assessment proceedings.” I.T.A. No. 593 of 2008. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. It is well settled that mere change of opinion cannot by itself be a ground for reassessment unless there is material to show concealment orescapement of income. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal examined theissue and have recorded a finding of fact that there was nothing to sustainthe satisfaction required to be formed for reassessment. We, thus, do not find any substantial question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 27.11.2008lucky (L.N. MITTAL) JUDGE