Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Chandigarh v. Goyal Builders
[Citation -2020-LL-0128-71]
| Citation | 2020-LL-0128-71 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Chandigarh |
| Respondent Name | Goyal Builders |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 28/01/2020 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | change of opinion • reopening of assessment • cash payment |
| Bot Summary: | AJAY TEWARI, J: This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Gurgaon and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Division Bench 'A', Chandigarh whereby, the stand of the assessee was accepted and notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was set aside. The brief facts are that a search was conducted on the premises under Section 132(1) of the Act. Thereafter proceedings were initiated and ultimately an order under Section 143 of the Act was passed on 29.12.2010. After a period of about 2 years a successor officer probably realised that there were glaring omissions in the original order under Section 143 of the Act and issued a notice under Section 148(1) of the Act stating that payments of 48,00,000/- odd had been made by the assessee in cash contrary to Section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules 1962 and framed re-assessment. In subsequent proceedings the Commissioner and Tribunal held that a specific query had SHAM SUNDER 2020.01.31 09:05 I attest to the authenticity and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 438 of 2018 -2- been put by the original AO to the assessee regarding sales and purchases and in response thereto, all details had been furnished by the assessee and therefore the issue of cash payments in contravention of Section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD of the Rules was before the Assessing Officer and therefore invocation of Section 148(1) of the Act was hit by the doctrine of change of opinion. The only contention raised before us is that in the original assessment order no opinion at all was formed and therefore, it was erroneous for the Commissioner and the Tribunal to held to be a case of change of opinion. Once an issue and evidence there of, is clearly before an authority and the authority ignores it, it cannot later on decide to re-open on that ground and the specious argument that if there is no opinion there can be no change of opinion, would not apply. |