IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  27.05.2011 
.
 Present:        Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for the appellant. 
.
 +ITA No.771/2011 
.
 The assessment which was completed under normal provisions was 
 reopened under Section 147 on the ground that the order?s scrutiny 
 reveals that the profit and loss account of the assessee showed profit on 
 job contract of `14,68,02,744/- above against net profit of 
 `6,92,41,165/-.  On that basis reassessment order was passed and 
 additions made rejecting the explanation of the assessee.  The CIT(A) 
 quashed the reassessment proceedings holding that the notice under 
 Section 147 was invalid and wrongly issued as it was a case of mere 
 change of opinion.   The CIT(A) relied upon the judgment of this Court in 
 CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd., 34 DTR (Del) 140.  The ITAT has upheld the 
 order of the CIT(A).  The Order passed by CIT(A) as well as ITAT would 
 clearly demonstrate that the issue in question was adequately and 
 properly discussed by the Assessing Officer while passing the 
 reassessment order and it was in fact a case of mere change of opinion. 
 Following facts in this behalf as disclosed by the ITAT would clinch the 
 issue: 
 ?6.       Thus, as per the reasons recorded it was the audit scrutiny 
 which has made the A.O. to initiate the reassessment proceedings.  In the 
 regular assessment the A.O. had dealt with the issue of deduction u/s 80 
 IB and assessee made following submissions. 
.
 ITA No.771/2011 
 Page 1 of 3 
.
.
 ?Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80 IB of Rs.112.46 lakhs in 
 respect of two of its divisions ? Liquid Polymer division and 
 polyurethane division at Pitampur.   The separate profit and loss account 
 and balance sheet of different units have already attached.  We are also 
 enclosing chart in respect of profit/loss earned along with the claim of 
 deduction u/s 80 IB claimed year wise from the initial A.Y. upto the 
 current A.Y.  The assessee has also taken due care of the provisions of 
 sub section (5) of Section 80 IB and the computation of deduction u/s 80 
 IA is made as if such eligible business was the only source of income of 
 the assessee during the P.Y. relevant to the initial A.Y. and to every 
 subsequent A.Y.? 
.
 From the above, it is clear issue of S.80 IB was considered at the time 
 of regular assessments.  The reopening proceeding against the assessment 
 made u/s 143(3) of the Act can be initiated only when the income has 
 escaped assessment for the reasons failure on the part of assessee to 
 disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 
 Only in such a condition the A.O. can invoke the jurisdiction for 
 reopening of the assessment.  In this case the facts were made available 
 by the assessee in the original return of income.   The A.O. considered 
 the relevant material at the time of original assessment proceedings u/s 
 143(3).  The reasons recorded for reopening also shows that there was no 
 fault on the part of the assessee in disclosing all material facts fully 
 and truly at the stage of original assessment proceedings.  All material 
 facts relevant to the issue of deduction u/s 80 IB of the Act were made 
 available to the A.O. which is evident by way of filing the audited 
 profit and loss account, balance sheet and auditor?s report and form 10 
 CCB along with the return of income.  The A.O. has made enquiries and 
 asked information on the aspects of deduction u/s 80 IB and has applied 
 his mind while framing the original assessment u/s 143(3).  Thus the 
 order passed u/s 143(3) on 28.2.2006 was made after applying mind and 
 appreciating facts available on record by the A.O.  There was no new 
 material acts came before the A.O. which can lead to form a belief that 
 income has escaped assessment. 
.
.
.
 ITA No.771/2011 
 Page 2 of 3 
 Thus A.O. was not in possession of any new material where reassessment 
 proceedings are necessary u/s 148 of the Act.  The A.O. had changed his 
 opinion on the same set of facts.? 
.
 No question of law arises and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 
.
.
 A.K. SIKRI, J. 
.
.
.
.
 MAY 27, 2011 
 M.L. MEHTA, J. 
 Dev 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ITA No.771/2011 
 Page 3 of 3 
.
.
 #28