IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
            HYDERABAD BENCH ` A', HYDERABAD

      BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
     AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                        ITA No. 364/Hyd/2019
                      Assessment Year: 2009-10

Ajay Varma Nagaraju,           vs.   Income-tax Officer,
Hyderabad.                            Ward ­ 12(3), Hyderabad

PAN ­ ABVPN2157K

          Appellant                         Respondent

                   Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao
                    Revenue by: Shri Phani Raju

                Date of hearing: 24/04/2019
        Date of pronouncement: 03/05/2019

                             O RDE R


PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM:

       This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the
order of CIT(A) ­ 1, Hyderabad, dated, 11/01/2019 for AY
2009-10.


2.     Brief   facts of   the case are,    the   assessment   was
originally completed u/s 143(3) of the Income -tax Act, 1961, in
short, ( `the Act') on a total income of Rs. 12,99,877/ -, in
which, the assessee claimed allowance of exemption u/s 10 to
the tune of Rs. 7,03,441/-. The assessee did not furnish any
details nor proof for claim of exemption u/s 10, the AO
reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issue of notice
u/s 148 of the Act vide notice dated 31/03/2014. AO noted that
though several notices were issued to the assessee to furnish
details of claim u/s 10 along with necessary proof,             the
assessee failed to furnish any details.
                                 2                           I.T.A. No. 364/Hyd/19
                                                    Ajay Varma Nagaraju, Hyd.




2.1   On   16/03/2015,    the   assessee    filed   a    request            for
providing reasons for reopening of the assessment, which was
denied by the AO as the assessee has not filed return of
income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The AO,
accordingly, disallowed the assessee's claim, to the extent of
Rs. 6,93,841/-. after allowing an amount of Rs. 9,600/ - paid
towards transport allowance.







3.    Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an
appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the order of AO.


4.    Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in
appeal before us contending in the grounds of appeal, inter -
alia that on the basis of mere change of opinion and without
there being any new tangible material, the assessment was
reopened. Further, it was contended that without issuing the
statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, when the assessee has
informed through his letter that the return of income originally
filed on 31/10/2009 may be treated as that of the return of
income filed in response to the notice u/s 148. Further, it was
contended that the AO erred in not communicating the reasons
for reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act.


5.    Considered the rival submissions and perused the
material on record. The assessee claimed allowance                            of
exemption u/s 10 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 7,03,441/ -,
which was allowed in the original assessment passed u/s
143(3) on 03/11/2011.     After a lapse of three years, the AO
alleged that the assessee did not furnish the details for
claiming   exemption     u/s    10   and   hence    reopened               the
assessment and disallowed the assessee's claim of exemption
on the ground that though several opportunities were provided
to the assessee, the assessee failed to submit any details
                                  3                           I.T.A. No. 364/Hyd/19
                                                     Ajay Varma Nagaraju, Hyd.









regarding the exempt income. Even when the assessee ask ed
to provide the reasons for reopening, the AO denied the same
on the ground that the assessee has not furnished revised
return of income against the issue of notice u/s 148, whereas,
the assessee states that he has informed through his letter
that the return of income originally filed on 31/10/2009 may be
treated as that of the return of income filed in response to the
notice u/s 148.


5.1    We find that the AO without bring ing any new tangible
material on record, reopened the assessment on the basis of
mere    change    of   opinion,   therefore,   the    reopening                of
assessment u/s 147 is bad in law and the same is hereby
quashed. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are
allowed.


6.     In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.


       Pronounced in the open court on 3 rd May, 2019.


              Sd/-                             Sd/-
       (P. MADHAVI DEVI)               (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN)
       JUDICIAL MEMBER                ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, dated 3 rd May, 2019.

kv

Copy forwarded to:

1.     Shri Ajay Varma Nagaraju, C/o P. Murali & Co., CAs
       6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad ­ 500 082
2.     ITO, Ward ­ 12(3), Hyd.
3.     CIT(A) - 1, Hyderabad
4.     Pr. CIT ­ 1, Hyderabad
5.     The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad
6.     Guard File