Case Law Details
CA Prarthana Jalan
Hon’ble ITAT Agra in the case of ACIT V/s. Kalyani Chaturvedi held that Re-appreciation of seized material in subsequent proceedings by the AO is unjustified and quashed the Re-assessment Order. Hon’ble ITAT has held as under-
All facts were all along were within the knowledge of the AO at original assessment stage, therefore, reappreciation of evidence at subsequent re-assessment proceedings is not permitted on mere change of opinion by subsequent AO. The re-assessment proceedings have been initiated again on similar issue and totally on identical facts regarding investment in property which have already been considered in the original assessment proceedings. It is, therefore, a case of change of opinion and such a change of opinion for reopening of section 147 is not permitted under law. The AO in the re-assessment order himself has mentioned that addition is made on account of unexplained expenditure/investment in the properties in the original assessment order. Such facts recorded by the AO in the reassessment order clearly strengthen the stand of the assessee for quashing of reassessment proceedings. No new material or fresh information have been received at the re-assessment stage. Therefore, it is merely a fresh application of mind by the subsequent AO on the same set of facts. The contention of the ld. DR is, therefore, liable to be rejected that investment in property was not considered at the original assessment stage. Further, the same seized material, i.e., Annexure A1, which was the basis of making some additions at original assessment stage, is the document of the department found during the course of search and once the same has been appreciated and considered by the AO, there is no question on the part of the assessee not to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. The re-appreciation of seized material in subsequent proceedings by the AO is, thus, wholly unjustified particularly when such a seized material was not considered worthy by the ld. CIT(A) in the original appellate proceedings deleting the addition on the same seized material. Therefore, there is no question of re-appreciating the same facts which have been duly considered by the first appellate authority prior to reopening of assessment. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, on proper appreciation of facts and material on record, rightly quashed the reassessment proceedings. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in quashing and annulling the reassessment order. The departmental appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Author Bio
