property in question, then all elements of transfer as envisaged under Section 2(47) of the Act stood complied with. Added to that, the assessee has filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2004-05 and has offered the sale consideration for capital gains and deposits were made in the Bank Account. All these aspects were called for by the Assessing Officer by issuing intimation and after considering the documents produced by the assessee, summons were issued to the partner of the firm, who had purchased the property, their Books of Accounts were perused and the Assessing Officer having been fully satisfied that the transfer has taken place in terms of Section 2(47) of the Act in the Assessment Year 2004-05, had passed the scrutiny Assessment Order under Section 143(3). Admittedly, the Assessing Officer did not have any new or tangible material to show that the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose all particulars and the assessment warrants reopening. In our considered view, the assessee has been put to sheer harassment on account of notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 31.03.2017. Had the Assessing Officer perused the letter of the Assessing Officer dated 26.07.2005, wherein, the details were sought for with regard to the deposit of capital gains, the information furnished by the assessee through his Chartered Accountant on 08.08.2005, the certificate issued by the Indian Bank, North Usman Road Branch, Chennai, dated 07.08.2005, and the order of assessment under Section 143(3) dated 30.10.2008, the present reopening would not have been made and could not have been made. Therefore, we are convinced that the reopening is a clear case of change of opinion and therefore, not valid in law.
