`IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.23119 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.12.2010 M/s AVM Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. -----Petitioner. Vs. The Union of India and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of notice dated 7.1.2010 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) and order dated 17.12.2010, rejecting objection of the petitioner to the notice for reassessment. 2. The petitioner let out its plant and machinery and treated the income received to be ‘business income’. It claimed deductions on the account of business expenses. The return for the assessment year 2007-08 was processed but thereafter, the Assessing Officer noticed that income of the assessee being from house property, business expenses could not be allowed to be deducted therefrom. Accordingly, notice for reassessment was issued. The petitioner filed objection to the effect that proposed C.W.P. No.23119 of 2010 reassessment was a result of mere change of opinion which was not permissible. The Assessing Officer rejected the said objection. According to the petitioner, reassessment was not justified on mere change of opinion. Reliance has been placed on following judgments:- i) Andhra Bank Ltd. v. CIT 225 ITR 447 (SC); ii) CIT v. Kelvinator India Ltd. [2010] 34 DTR 49 (SC); iii) CIT v. Anand Rubber & Plastics (P) Ltd. (1989) 178 ITR 301 (P&H) and iv) CIT v. Golden Engineering Works (2002) 256 ITR 774 (P&H). 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The submission on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is not disputed that for the assessment year in question no scrutiny assessment was made and merely return was processed. In such a case, there was no question of mere change of opinion. The reasons for assessment show that according to the Assessing Officer, income had escaped assessment on account of the petitioner having claimed impermissible deductions. This issue could not have been gone into at the time of processing. Reference may be made to CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri 291 ITR 500 (SC) noticing the scheme of law after 1.4.1989. The judgments relied upon do not deal with the case of reassessment after processing and are, thus, distinguishable. Plea of reassessment being illegal, when no satisfactory assessment was earlier made, cannot be accepted 2 C.W.P. No.23119 of 2010 on the ground that the same was based on mere change of opinion. Dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 23, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ashwani JUDGE 3