Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 13881

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH)
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member, Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member
AVSL Securities Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
DCIT – Respondent
ITA No.7656/Del/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nitin Gulati
For the Respondents: Ankush Kalra

Reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible when based on the same material available during the original scrutiny assessment, as it constitutes a 'change of opinion' and an invalid attempt by the Assessing Officer to review their own prior order without fresh tangible evidence.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 143(3), 147, 148, 148A - Reassessment proceedings - Validity - 'Change of opinion' - Assessee's income was assessed under section 143(3) pursuant to a survey - Subsequently, reopening of assessment sought under section 147 on the exact same material without bringing any fresh tangible material - Principles of 'change of opinion' discussed - Held, reopening solely based on information already available and examined during the original assessment proceedings is impermissible and amounts to a review of the earlier order. (Paras 10-14)

Facts of the case:
The assessee is a private limited company engaged in share brokerage and investment. Following a search operation at the premises of third-party entities, a survey was conducted at the assessee’s business premises. An assessment was subsequently completed under section 143(3) where income was accepted. Later, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 148/148A, alleging undisclosed income based on the same information and material that was already on record during the initial scrutiny proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The tribunal noted that the search and survey actions occurred before the completion of the original assessment. The information used to reopen the case was already available to the Assessing Officer at that time. Consequently, the reassessment was based merely on a 'change of opinion' regarding the previously examined material, which is legally unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148A after a completed assessment under 143(3) is valid when based on the same material already available and examined.

Ratio Decidendi: An Assessing Officer cannot reopen a completed assessment under the guise of reassessment if the intention is to review established findings based on the same facts, as 'change of opinion' is not a valid ground for reassessment; there must be fresh, tangible material with a direct nexus to escaped income.

Result: Appeal allowed.

O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [CIT(A) in short] in Appeal No. CIT(A)-30/10773/2018-19 dated 30.10.2025 for Assessment Year: 2019-20.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of investment in Mutual Funds, Shares, Bond, IPO etc. The return of income was filed u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act on 30.11.2019 declaring loss of Rs.1,33,517/-. Thereafter, a survey u/s 133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee as a consequent to the information found during the course of search operation u/s 132 of the Act in the case of Shri Pankaj Goel/ Deepak Goel of Asian Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd. on 25.03.2017. Thereafter considering the submissions made and verifying the documents found during the course of survey and statements recorded of various persons, assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) dated 22.09.2021 accepting the returned income no addition was made. Thereafter, the AO in terms of the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 28.04.2023 has reopened the assessment of the assessee and the reassessment order was passed on 26.03.2025 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act wherein addition of Rs. 1,77,77,720/- was made u/s 69A by holding the funds received as accommodation entry and unexplained money of the assessee and further addition of Rs.1,24,444/- was made as alleged commission on such accommodation entry of Rs.1,77,77,720/-. Beside this the AO further hold that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry and, therefore, has made the addition u/s 69C payment of commissions of Rs. 1,42,222/- @ 0.80%. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,80,44,380/-.

Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 30.10.2025 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the Assessment Order without appreciating the legal and factual submissions of the Appellant.

A. Jurisdictional Grounds (Invalidity of Reassessment)

1. Invalid Reassessment u/s 147/148A:

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by upholding the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147/148A, ignoring that the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 22.09.2021, and the current reopening is based on the same material that was available during the scrutiny proceedings.

2. Change of Opinion:

That the reopening is merely a "Change of Opinion" which is impermissible in the case of a completed scrutiny assessment, and the Ld. CIT(A) failed to apply the settled judicial precedents on this matter.

3. No Tangible Material:

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the AO had "tangible material" to form the belief that income escaped assessment, when in fact, the material was merely information already available with the department and was not subjected to fresh independent application of mind.

B. Substantive Grounds (Merits of Addition).

4. Addition u/s 69A:

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,77,77,720/-made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act, by wrongly treating the loan transaction with M/s Vagabound Tradex Pvt. Ltd as "unexplained money" or "fictitious purchases".

5. Genuine Loan Transaction:

That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the transaction with M/s Vagabound Tradex Pvt. Ltd was a genuine short-term loan taken to meet working capital requirements for the share brokerage business, which was subsequently repaid in full through banking channels, and therefore, no addition u/s 69A or Section 68 was warranted.

6. Consequential Additions:

That the consequential additions of commission income made by the AO, being directly related to the unsustainable addition u/s 69A, must also be deleted.

C. Violation of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 13881

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH)Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member, Manish Agarwal, Accountant MemberAVSL Securities Pvt. Ltd. – AppellantVersusDCIT – RespondentITA No.7656/Del/2025

Reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible when based on the same material available during the original scrutiny assessment, as it constitutes a 'change of opinion' and an invalid attempt by the Assessing Officer to review their own prior order without fresh tangible evidence.

Cases Referred (1)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH)
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member, Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member
AVSL Securities Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
DCIT – Respondent
ITA No.7656/Del/2025