Facts of the case:
1. The assessee was formed with an object to carry on the business of manufacturing and testing chemicals. The Madras Export Processing Zone and The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce granted permission to it to carry on the business of manufacturing of test kits used for checking iodized salt.
2. Later, the assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2010-11, claiming deduction under section 10B.
3. An order of assessment under section 143(3) was passed on accepting the claim of deduction under section 10B.
4. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer noticed that in Column No. 7 to Form No. 56G, filed in support of claim of deduction under section 10B, date of commencement of manufacture was mentioned as 28-3-2000.
5. According to the Assessing Officer if the date of commencement of manufacture or production referred to in the Column No. 7 in Form No. 56G as 28-3-2000 was taken as true, the deduction claimed was at the eleventh year and not at the tenth year which was not permissible. He thus initiated reassessment proceedings.
6. The assessee raised an objection that actual date of commencement of manufacturing was on 25-5-2000 and, thus, deduction was claimed in tenth year itself. The Assessing Officer set aside the assessee's objection.
7. The assessee approached the Honorable High Court of Madras by filing a writ petition.
Judgement : The Honorable High Court of Madras has held that mere change of opinion on the existing material cannot be a ground for reopening the assessment in the absence of any new material that had come to the possession of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, writ petition was allowed and impugned proceedings of the respondent in reopening the assessment was set aside.
https://www.taxmann.com/filecontent.aspx ?Page=CASELAWS&id=101010000000184357&isxml=Y&search=&tophead=true&tophead =true