DCIT Vs 63 Moons Technologies Limited (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act without any new tangible material is fatal. Accordingly, reopening is not sustainable in law and hence liable to be quashed.
Facts-
The assessee is engaged in the business of development of software technologies and services towards various segment, i.e., exchange business, brokerage and intermediaries services in India as well as outside India. The original assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) vide order dated 15.05.2015, assessing total income at Rs.108,37,39,010/- wherein claim of deduction u/s. 10A and 10AA was accepted. The said assessment order was rectified u/s. 154 vide order dated 18.06.2015 with total assessed income at Rs.110,07,89,650/- by making an addition towards income from house property. Subsequently, AO recorded reasons to believe for initiating reopening of the case and for issuing notice u/s. 148. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment by concluding that reopening was merely based on change of opinion. Accordingly, being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion-
Held that in the present set of facts, there is nothing new tangible material which has been brought on record to validate the jurisdiction assumed by the ld. Assessing Officer for invoking the reopening of the case. Absence of such a fresh new tangible material is fatal to the validity of the impugned reassessment proceedings. Reasons to believe recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer does not advert to any fresh tangible material which has come in his possession after the conclusion of the original assessment proceedings. They only make reference to the Assessment Order for AY 2014-15 and notes to account to the financial statement which in no way constitute fresh tangible material as they were always part of the assessment records. This fact is corroborated by the detailed submission made by the assessee vide its letter dated 05.03.2015. Thus, what ld. Assessing Officer has resorted to is based on assessment proceedings on a subsequent year, i.e., AY 2014-15 which does not constitute tangible material for the purpose of reopening for the concluded assessment. Reference to the assessment for the subsequent year of AY 2014-15 where a contrary view had been taken does not empower the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction for the purpose of reopening of the assessment in the present case.
