|COURT:||Delhi High Court|
|CORAM:||S. Muralidhar J, Vibhu Bakhru J|
|COUNSEL:||Ananya Kapoor, Salil Kapoor, Sanat Kapoor|
|DATE:||March 3, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||March 28, 2016 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|Section 147, reopening, reopening on factually erroneous premise, not permissible, change of opinion|
Since the action of the Revenue was based on a factually erroneous premise, the Court is of the view that the reopening of the assessments for the said AYs is not sustainable in law. The Court is also satisfied that the requirement of the law, as explained by the Court in Commissioner of Income Tax. v. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), and reiterated in the later decisions, has not been fulfilled in the present case.