1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1711 OF 2009 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1712 OF 2009 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1713 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, City VII, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s.Penwalt India Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the revenue. The Tribunal was pleased to held that reopening itself was bad. The Tribunal has expressed itself in the following words : “31.1 The original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3), all the primary facts were before the Assessing Officer. The method of accounting was discussed, examined and accepted by the Department. Percentage Completion Method, for bringing to tax profits on incomplete contracts was not the accounting method followed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has formed an opinion that the method of accounting followed by the assessee was appropriate. By re-opning the assessment, the Assessing Officer has changed his opinion and wanted to re- 2 appreciate and re-decide on the issue of Method of accounting followed by the assessee. This, in our opinion, is not correct. No reopening is permissible on a change of opinion. For this proposition, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT & Another Vs. Forom France reported in 264 ITR 566 (SC) held as follows : “REASSESSMENT – NOT ON BASIS OF MERE CHANCE IN OPINION-LAW SAME BEFORE AND AFTER AMENDMENT BY DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987 – INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 S.S./47, 148.” 2. No fault can be found with the view taken by the tribunal. The appeal is without any substance. 3. Once it is held that re-opening itself is bad, other questions may not arise. 4. The appeal is thus dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)