Balakumar Radhakrishna Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
AO Cannot Revisit Old Figures—Change of Opinion Dooms Reassessment -No Fresh Material, No Reopening: ITAT Quashes 148 as Pure Review
Assessee filed return for AY 2014-15 declaring income of Rs.5,94,710, which was accepted u/s 143(3) on 22.09.2016. AO later reopened assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 on 18.03.2019 alleging incorrect computation of LTCG, stating that Assessee wrongly applied full purchase value instead of 1/7th share for indexed cost. Tribunal noted from the recorded reasons that reopening was entirely based on the same material already on record during original scrutiny & no fresh tangible material had emerged thereafter.
Relying on TANMAC India, Indian Syntans Investments, Orient Craft Ltd and Kelvinator, Tribunal held that reopening cannot be used as a tool for review, that “change of opinion” is an in-built safeguard, & reassessment must be founded on new tangible material. Since AO merely revisited a concluded issue from the original assessment, the notice issued u/s 148 was held invalid, & the reassessment order dated 12.12.2019 was quashed in full. Grounds on merits were left open as academic.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A) order dated 04.08.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2014-15.
