आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ (एस एम सी) , (cid:7008)यायपीठ,चे(cid:7382)ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:7088)ी जॉज(cid:6981) जॉज(cid:6981), उपा(cid:7007)य(cid:6979) के सम(cid:6979)

BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2309/CHNY/2025 िनधा(cid:6981)रण वष(cid:6981)/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Balakumar Radhakrishna, The Deputy Commissioner

3, ABM Avenue, Vs. of Income Tax, Crescent Street, Corporate Circle 5(1), RA Puram, Chennai Chennai – 600 028 PAN: BMTPR 9022D (अपीलाथ(cid:7278)/Appellant) ((cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:7278) क(cid:7409) ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Arjun Raj, CA (cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278) क(cid:7409) ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई क(cid:7409) तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03.12.2025 घोषणा क(cid:7409) तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A) order dated 04.08.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2014-15.

2. The Ld.AR has argued the following issues namely (i) reopening of assessment is bad in law since the AO has no tangible fresh maternal in his possession for reopening the assessment, (ii) reopening of assessment is done on a mere change of opinion and (iii) on merits

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 2014-15, the return of income was filed on 02.08 2024 declaring total income of Rs.5,94,710/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 22.09.2016 by accepting the returned income. Subsequently, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 18.03.2019 in order to examine whether Long-Term Capital Gains declared in the return of income has been correctly calculated. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act vide order dated 12.12.2019. The AO recalculated the Long-Term Capital Gains at Rs.24.01,836/- instead of loss declared in the return of Income of Rs. 22,14,019/-.

4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Before the FAA, assessee had raised grounds with reference to reopening of assessment is bad in law and also on merits. The FAA did not adjudicate the legal grounds raised and dismissed the appeal on merits.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed two sets of paper-book enclosing therein the return of income filed for the relevant assessment year, return of income filed pursuant to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, the notices, replies submitted during the course of original proceedings, reassessment proceedings and the case laws relied on.

6. The LD.AR submitted that the reopening of assessment is bad in law since the AO does not have fresh tangible material in his possession for issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act after the completion of original assessment proceedings. The Ld.AR by referring to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment submitted that it is clear no tangible new material has come to the possession of AO for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In support of his contention, the Ld.AR relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court the case of ACIT vs Indian Syntans Investments Pvt Ltd., reported in 176 taxmann.com 22 & TANMAC India vs. DCIT reported in 78 taxmann.com 155 and the order of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of The Gate of Hope Charitable Trust vs. TO in ITA No. 1372 & 2206/CHNY/2024 (Order dated 05.03.2025). It was further contented that reopening of assessment is only a mere change of opinion and relied on the judgment or the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India reported in 320 TTR 561 (SC). As regards the issue on merits, the Ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before the FAA.

7. The