IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 230/2012 and C.M. No.6442/2012 (for condonation of delay)  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT             ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Advocate. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 KEANE INDIA LTD          ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through: Mr. Shashi M. Kapila and Mr. Pravesh 
 . 
 Sharma, Advocates. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
        20.04.2012 
 . 
 We need not go into the merits of the matter relating to 
 computation of deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 
 (?Act?, for short) and whether it is to be done before or after taking 
 into account the brought forward losses and depreciation. 
 . 
 2.  In the present case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (?Tribunal?, 
 for short) has given a finding that it is a case of change of opinion 
 and, therefore, the re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the 
 Act are bad.  We notice that the CIT (Appeals) has recorded that during 
 the course of the appellant proceedings, the assessee had furnished 
 copies of documents as per details given below :- 
 . 
 ?Documents pertaining to original assessment 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 i. Submission dated     5-7-2005 
 . 
 ii. Submission dated     27-1-2006 
 . 
 iii. Submission dated    16-3-2006 
 . 
 iv. Submission dated    22-3-2006 
 . 
 v. Audited financial statements  23-3-2006 
 . 
 vi. Order u/s 143(3) dated   27-3-2006 
 . 
 vii      Order u/s 154 dated   01-5-2006 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 Documents pertaining to reassessment 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 i. Submission dated     8-5-2008 
 . 
 ii. Submission dated     3-10-2008 
 . 
 iii. Submission dated    14-10-2008 
 . 
 iv. Notice and reasons recorded to initiate reassessment proceedings u/s 
 148 dated 25.3.2008.? 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 3. The CIT (Appeals) further records that he had seen submissions 
 dated 16.3.2006, 22.3.2006 and 23.3.2006 on the question of deduction 
 under Section 10A of the Act and the computation was specifically dealt 
 with and examined at the time of original assessment.  Thereafter, the 
 Assessing Officer wanted to invoke power under Section 154 to rectify the 
 original assessment order on the ground that he had committed a mistake 
 or error at the time of the original assessment.  The said proceedings 
 were dropped on the ground that this issue was debatable.  The fact, 
 however, remains that the Assessing Officer had dealt with and examined 
 the question of computation of deduction under Section 10A and as then 
 only he would have invoked Section 154 of the Act. 
 . 
 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the legal issue on 
 merit has not been specifically answered or debated upon in the original 
 assessment order.  In this case queries and questions regarding 
 computation of deduction under Section 10A were raised by the Assessing 
 Officer and were answered by the assessee at the time of original 
 assessment.  Failure or mere absence of finding or averment in the 
 assessment order is not material.  The assessment order is authored by 
 the Assessing Officer.  The assessee cannot compel and prevail upon the 
 Assessing Officer to write the order in a particular manner.  In CIT vs. 
 Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del), it was held as under: - 
 . 
 ??16. Applying the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court 
 as well as the observations of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, we find 
 that if the entire material had been placed by the assessed before the 
 Assessing Officer at the time when the original assessment was made and 
 the Assessing Officer applied his mind to that material and accepted the 
 view canvassed by the assessed, then merely because he did not express 
 this in the assessment order, that by itself would not give him a ground 
 . 
 to conclude that income has escaped assessment and, Therefore, the assessment needed to be reopened. On the other hand, if the Assessing 
 Officer did not apply his mind and committed a lapse, there is no reason 
 why the assessed should be made to suffer the consequences of that lapse. 
 . 
 17. In so far as the present appeal is concerned, we find that the 
 assessed had placed all the material before the Assessing Officer and 
 where there was a doubt, even that was clarified by the assessed in its 
 letter dated 8th November, 1995. If the Assessing Officer, while passing 
 the original assessment order, chose not to give any finding in this 
 regard, that cannot give him or his successor in office a reason to 
 reopen the assessment of the assessed or to contend that because the 
 facts were not considered in the assessment order, a full and true 
 disclosure was not made. Since the facts were before the Assessing 
 Officer at the time of framing the original assessment, and later a 
 different view was taken by him or his successor on the same facts, it 
 clearly amounts to a change of opinion. This cannot form the basis for 
 permitting the Assessing Officer or his successor to reopen the 
 assessment of the assessed?? 
 . 
 5. In view of the aforesaid position, we dismiss the appeal on the 
 ground that it is a clear case of change of opinion.  We note that we are 
 not examining the question of computation of deduction under Section 10A 
 of the Act on merits in this appeal. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J. 
 . 
 APRIL 20, 2012 
 . 
 ?AA? 
 . 
 $ 48 
 .