Full Text
ITA 397/2017
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI NBCC LTD.
Appellant
Through : Mr. Arun Khatrti, Advocate.
Through: None.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI ,u"" f
Through : Mr. Arun Khatrti, Advocate.
Through: None.
CM APPL. No- 22436/2017 (Exemption) in TTA AlSlim
ORDER
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. Nn- 22437/2017 (delav in re-filinp) in TTA 42512011
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing this appeal Page 1 of[3] ITA 397/2017 & 425/2017 2017:DHC:8734-DB iscondoned. The application isdisposed of. TTA.197/2017 & TTA 425/2017
3. These two appeals by the Revenue are directed against the order dated October, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') in CO No. 146/Del/2012 and ITA No. 1559/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2003-04.
4. The Revenue is aggrieved that the ITAT has allowed the cross-objections filed by the Assessee and held that the re-opening ofthe assessment for the AY in question under Section 147 ofthe Act was bad in law.
5. The ITAT has in the impugned order in para 4.1, after setting out the reasons for re-opening ofthe assessment, observed as under: "4.1. A perusal ofthe above reasons demonstrate that the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the assessment is reopened beyond the period of four years and there is no fresh tangible material with the Assessing Officer (A.O.) based on which the reasons for reopening have been recorded. The A.O. states that on a perusal of records of the assessee, he observed that the assessee has debited Rs.3,12,66,000/- as uncertified value of work. Such reopening, in the absence of fresh tangible material is notpermitted in law." 6". Learned counsel for the Revenue has not been able to dispute that there was no fresh tangible material to justify the re-opening of the assessment which, in the first place, took place under Section 143(3) of the Act. The statement ofaccounts, balance sheet etc. were already available with the AO ITA 397/2017&425/2017 ^ when the assessment took place in the first instance. The reasons recorded for re-opening of the assessment merely proceeded to further analyse the same documents to arrive at adifferent conclusion. Clearly, therefore, this was acase ofchange ofopinionwith no firesh tangible material.
7. Given the settled legal position, the Court is unable to find any legal infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises.
8. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed JULY 11,2017 j S.MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.