For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

In the presentcase, the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on18.11.2016 accepting the declared income and the A.O. examined the deduction u/s 80P of the Act and granted the deduction. Therefore, the reassessment in thiscasewas made to withdraw deduction u/s 80P of the Act by treating the interest income under the head “income from other sources” instead of “business income”. This is nothing but change of opinion. On mere change of opinion, the concluded assessment cannot be reopened as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in thecaseof CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC). Further, it is to be noted that for reopening the concluded assessment, the Assessing Officer should form an opinion on the basis of same material which is already on record and not from any external sources. For reopening an assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot consider the information which is already on record and it should be from outside sources as held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in thecaseof CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [(2010) 326 ITR 437 (Kar.)]. Since there is no new material and on the available material the A.O. has reopened the present assessment. Being so, we cannot uphold the action of the reopening of assessment. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the following judgments, viz., (i) CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [(2012) 207 Taxman.136 (Kar.), (ii) Parixit Industires (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [(2013) 352 ITR 349(Guj.)], (iii) H.K.Buildcon Ltd. v.ITO [(2011) 339 ITR 535 (Guj.)], and (iv) Lahneyer Holdings GmbH v. DCIT [376 ITR 70 (Del.)]. Accordingly, we quash the reassessment order. Since we have decided the issue on merits, we are refrain from going into other grounds raised by the assessee.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961—Reassessment --- Assessee filed appeal against the order of CIT(Appeals). For the A.Y. 2014-15, the assessee filed its return of income, claiming deduction u/s. 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed U/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act accepting the returned income. On examination of the financial statements of the assessee, the AO noticed that the assessee had earned interest on FDs kept with Scheduled banks, which had to be taxed as income from other sources u/s 56 the Act. A notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 03.11.2017 was issued by the AO, directing the assessee to file the return of income. In response, the assessee filed a letter dated 22.11.2017 requesting the AO to treat the return of income filed on 30.11.2014 as its return filed u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee requested for copy of the reasons recorded which were furnished to it. The assessee filed its objections to the reasons recorded, which the AO disposed of. Notice u/s 143(2) dated 30/05/2018 was served on the assessee. During the reassessment proceedings, the AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act to the extent of interest income earned from deposits kept in Nationalised Banks and Co-operative Banks. The order of the Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the reopening of assessment and also decided the issue against the assessee. Against this, the assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal. . The reassessment in this case was made to withdraw deduction u/s 80P of the Act by treating the interest income under the head “income from other sources” instead of “business income”. This is nothing but change of opinion. On mere change of opinion, the concluded assessment cannot be reopened. Therefore. The tribunal cannot upheld the action of the reopening of the assessment. Accordingly Tribunal quashed the reassessment order and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. --- AKSHAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT COOPERATIVE LIMITED vs. ITO.[2020] 23 ITCD Online 44 (BANG)