How many judgments cite CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.?

1,673 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 151, Section 143(2).

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

320 ITR 561Supreme Court of India2010#18 most cited

What is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

1,673

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. · Kelvinator of India · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment proceedings · mere change of opinion · fresh tangible material · escapement of income · reason to believe · validity of reassessment

Also reported as

187 Taxmann 3122 SCC 723187 Taxmann.com 312

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 151 Section 143(2)Section 68 Section 139

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

kelvinator fresh tangible material mere change of opinion first proviso to section 147 material facts necessary for assessment full and true disclosure change of opinion beyond four years live link tangible material escapement of income reason to believe

Judgments citing CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 667/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh

Section 143(3)Section 147

…(Ker) 05. CIT vs. Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) 06. CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) 07. CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Finance Corp Ltd, 306 ITR 136 (Mad) and he further relied on the followings judgments. 01. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd, 320 ITR 561 (SC) 02. Tanmac India vs. DCIT, (2019) 97 CCH 189 (Mad) 03. Principal CIT vs. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd, (2018) 99’ taxmann. com 206 (SC). ITA Nos.667 &668/19 :- 7 -: On the merits, it is submitted that the donation made by 9. M/s. Ranstand Holdings, NV, Netherlands is a voluntary payment to the trust as a goodwill gesture and the con…

Sushil Kashmirilal Agarwal, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 921/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…t permissible. He therefore submitted that the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act be treated as void and ab initio and for which he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Limited reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 SC. Ld. D.R. on the other hand, supported the order of AO and Ld.CIT(A). 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Assessee in the present appeal is challenging the re-opening of the assessment u/s 147 / 148 of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that assessee had filed original return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 o…

Anala Ram Rao, Koraput vs. ITO, Jeypore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CTK/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-2006

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

…and this AIR information was already on the record and there was no new tangible material with the Assessing Officer on 21.5.2008. Ld A.R. of the assessee referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 310 ITR 561 (SC), wherein newly substituted P a g e 3 | 6 ITA No.4 13/CTK/201 0 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 05- 200 6 provision of section 147 of the Act with effect from 01.04.1989 is interpreted by observing, that section 147 of the Act, as substituted w.e.f. 01.04.1989 does not postulates conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessme…

Pramod Paliwal, Khanwa vs. ACIT Khanwa, Khanwa

In the result Ground No. 1 (a) &

ITA 271/IND/2018[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Oct 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pramod Paliwal, Acit, Prop. M/S. Pragati Vs. Khandwa Construction, Ramkishanganj, Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Adapp8012A Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Cas Date Of Hearing 10.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2019 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…first proviso to section 147 of the Act. It is a settled law that merely for the reason of change of opinion, a notice under s.148 cannot be issued. 3.01 Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii) Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (2016) 95 CCH 15 (DeI 6 Pramod Paliwal HC) iii) Direct Information (P) Ltd. vs. ITa (2012) 349 ITR 150 (MumHC) iv) Arvind Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT (2000) 242 ITR 173 (GujHC) v) Dell India (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT (2015) 127 DTR 291 (Kar.) vi) CITvs. Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 386 (Kar…

Divya, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6097/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Suchitra Kamble, [Assessment Year: 2009-10] Divya, Ito, D/O-Shri Kailash Chand, 151, Kala Ward-1, Mandir Saree, Palika Bazar, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana Haryana

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

…8 was initiated on the basis of no material much less any tangible on relevant material and as such reasons recorded do not constitute valid reasons. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561)(SC) and ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P). Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC). The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. BatraBhatta & Co. 321 ITR 526 (Del.) and Ashok Kumar Sen vs. ITO 132 ITR 707 (Del.). 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A). The Ld. DR a…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6265/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 6265/Del/2014 (A.Y. 2006-07)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24

…ible material and recording of proper satisfaction. 2(i) That the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and the reassessment is based on change of opinion in total disregard to principle laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd 320 ITR 561 and as such the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s 147. 3 (ii) That all the details regarding interest expenses were duly placed before assessing officer in the original assessment proceedings and as such the reopening is only on the basis of change of opinion. (iii) That even otherwise, audit objection cannot be a…

The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Kachchh Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1458/AHD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedita Nos.1458-1459/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 I.T.O, Kachchh Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(1)(5) Vs Ground Floorhouse, Ahmedabad. Opp. C.N. Vidhyalaya, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Vartik R. Chowshi &

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…147 of the Act based on the same set of documents examined during the original proceedings is not sustainable. In this connection we find support and guidance from the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT versus Kelvinator India Ltd reported in 320 ITR 561 wherein it was held as under: “the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is 'tangible material' to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, the Parliament not only deleted the words 'reason to believe' but also inserted the word 'opinion' in section 147…

Laxman D Daware, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3464/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147

…ll the details in respect of the sundry creditors and therefore re-opening of assessment is only on mere change of opinion. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: - (i) Varshaben Shantabhai Patel vs. ITO (282 CTR 75) (ii) CIT v. Kelvinator India Ltd. [320 ITR 561 SC] (iii) Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT [308 ITR 195 Bom] (iv) CIT v. Prima Paper & Eng. Industry [364 ITR 222 Bom.] (v) PCIT v. Meenaxi India Ltd. [395 ITR 677 Delhi] PCIT v. RMG Polyviny [396 ITR 5 Delhi] (vi) 6. Coming to the merits of the case, it is submitted that assessee produced books of account, bills, and vouchers for verification. Assesse…

Laxman D. Daware, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3463/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147

Laxman D. Daware, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3462/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147

M/S. Raghvi Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4565/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2005-06 Raghvi Finance Ltd. Vs. Ito 10, Community Centre-Ii, Ward-15(1) Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi 110 063 Pan Aaacr5879F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…ruly disclosing the material facts at the time of original assessment is also to be fulfilled. 6.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, endorsing the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., held in its order reported in 320 ITR 561, ".....that Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have link with the formation of belief." Therefore, if the fresh tangible material which the AO has in his possession is relevant to have nexus to the formation of beli…

G.T.Mohan Rao, Kakinada vs. The ITO, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 182/VIZ/2015[]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.182/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2007-08) G.T.Mohan Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Ramya Engineering Co. Ward-1 Plot No.3-20-4/1/A Kakinada Rammohan Nagar Kakinada [Pan : Aehpg7387R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Suman Malik, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 37(1)Section 40Section 40a

…constitute difference of opinion. On difference of opinion, the AO is not permitted to reopen the assessment. This view is supported by the decision in the case of CIT Vs. 12 I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2015, A.Y.2007-08 G.T.Mohan Rao, Kakinada Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 SC and Vodafone South Limited, 363 ITR 388 relied upon by the assessee. From the above, it is clear that the second time also the assessment was reopened on the same issue which was examined by the AO, thus the same constitute difference of opinion and reappraising the same facts. Therefore, we hold that notice issued u/s 148 is unsustainable and…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4395/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-14(2)(1) M/S Idea Cellular Ltd. 432, 4Th Floor, (Successor To M/S. Spice Communications Ltd.), 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, East Wing, Windsor Off. Cst Mumbai 400020 Road, Kalina, Near Vidya Nagari, Kalina, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 098 Pan – Aagcs6070H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop With Shri M.K. Singh (Dr) Respondent By : Ms. Krupa Gandhi With Vidhi Doshi (Ar)

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Swaroop with Shri M.K. Singh (DR)For Respondent: Ms. Krupa Gandhi with Vidhi Doshi (AR)

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 254(1)Section 37

…me to his notice for making belief for reopening of the case. In support of his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in CIT Versus Kalvinator of India Ltd 8 ITA No. 4395 Mum 2016-M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010 ) 320 ITR 561 (SC ), Idea Cellular Versus DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bombay High Court), OHM Stock Brokers. Ltd versus CIT (351 ITR 443) (Bombay High Court), GKN Sinter Metal Ltd versus ACIT (WP No.2639 of 2007) (Bombay High Court), German Remedies Ltd versus DCIT 285 ITR 26 (Bombay High Court), Aroni Commercials Ltd versus JCIT 362 ITR 403 (Bombay High Cou…

Endress + Hauser Flowtec (India) Pvt.Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3086/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3086/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvchatFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishor

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 92CSection 92D(3)

…for at the time of original assessment by the Assessing Officer and it cannot be stated that the opinion has been formed at that time so as to amount to a change of opinion now at the time of reopening proceeding, in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd.(320 ITR 561) the Supreme Court observed as under (page 564) : "However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words 'reason to believe' failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of 'mere change of opinion', which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must al…

Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Agra vs. ITO, Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 283/AGR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra Before : Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member ITA No. 283/Agr./2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, vs. Income-tax Officer, Prop. S.D. Buildrs, B-69, Trans 5(3), Firozabad. Yamuna Colony, Agra (UP) PAN: AFMPG 5248P (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. R.C. Tomar, I.T.P. Sh. Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR Respondent by Date of Hearing 03.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement 11.09.2019 ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved from the order of ld. CIT(A)-2, Agra…

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 262/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G.Manjunathadcit-2(2)(1) Vs. M/S Larsen & Toubro Room No.545, 5Th Floor Limited Aaykar Bhawan L& T House, N.M.Marg M.K.Road Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aaacl0140P Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s been completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 5. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also by relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme 4 Larsen & Toubro Limited Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 held that the assessment has been reopened on mere change of opinion without there being any tangible material before the Ld.AO for reopening the assessment. The Ld.CIT(A), further observed that in the reasons for reopening, the Ld. AO has mentioned that on review of the assessment, it is observed that there is under assessment of income. This…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 3327/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…pen the proceeding without anything further, the same would amount to giving premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong.” The said judgment has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 561 (SC). M. Further, in the hands of Appellant, too, the Department has found the said transactions to be at arm’s length. Copy of the order of Ld. TPO is at page 254 of the paper book volume – 1. It is important to note that the order passed by the TPO in the case of the Appellant is much after the conclusion of survey at the premises of LGIL and…

M/S. Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Noida

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 1946/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- Noida, International Taxation, Noida

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 6916/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

M/S Chhaganlal Agarwal, Chaibasa vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Chaibasa

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/RAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.319/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Chhaganlal Agarwal, Vs. Ito Ward-3(4), Chaibasa Bari Bazar, Chaibasa-833201 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaffc 6053 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 40

…ear case of change of opinion by the Assessing Officer which is not sustainable as per the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 256 ITR 1, which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [2010] 320 ITR 561(SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- “Heard learned counsel on both sides. 2. A short question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is, whether the concept of "change of opinion" stands obliterated with effect from 1-4-1989, i.e., after substitution of section 4 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 b…