Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT

102 ITR 287Supreme Court of India1976#739 most cited

What is Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT authority for?

The Supreme Court broadly defined 'information' for reassessment under Section 147 to include new facts, external sources, material already on record, or a correct understanding of law from judicial decisions. This definition enables reopening assessments based on subsequent information or mistakes.

137

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · definition of information · reason to believe · escapement of income · fresh tangible material · mere change of opinion · live link · Section 147(b)

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 142(1)Section 68Section 115JBSection 143(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 147(b)fresh tangible materialsection 34(1)within four yearsfirst proviso to section 147kelvinatormere change of opinionsection 151(1)beyond four yearssection 148(2)change of opinionlive link

Judgments citing Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2805/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…In this regard, reliance is placed on following case laws of the enough. In this regard, reliance is placed on following case laws of the enough. In this regard, reliance is placed on following case laws of the Apex Court: a. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 b. ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 c. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another vs ITO & Anr. (SC)203 Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another vs ITO & Anr. (SC)203 Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another vs ITO & Anr. (SC)203 ITR 456 ITR 456 d. Sri Krishna Sri Kr…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tx, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Shri Omi Bagadia, Raipur

ITA 248/RPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 248/Rpr/2017 Co No.11/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur. (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Omi Bagadia 15-16, Bagadia Mension, Jawarhar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 250(4)

…finding that the issue was duly considered in original assessment order and the same cannot be used for the reopening of the assessment, thereby ignoring the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kalyanji Mavji& Co. vs CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287, wherein it has been held that reassessment is permissible on the basis of the material already available on record and even the information need not be from external source?" 5."Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in accepting the fresh evidence produced by the assessee, if any, without…

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Ica Eduskill Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2147/KOL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 35D

…is no fresh fact available to the A.O. on the basis of which he is seeking to reopen the assessments, there appears to be a case of mere change of opinion. In such cases, reopening proceedings are not valid. The principles enunciated in Kalyanji Mavji’s case 102 ITR 287 cannot save the impugned action of the A.O". In the case of Mercury Travels Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 258 ITR 533 (Cal.), it was held as follows - “that where the primary facts were before the A.O. when he made assessments under sub-section (3) of section 143 and it was not open to him to invoke the provisions of section 147 of the said Act to reopen the…

Hitesh Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6418/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Vinay Sinha
Section 54F

…the materials on record or from any enquiry or research into facts or law. There 1s a plethora of judgements that such information need not be from external source refer CIT and anr. vs. Rinku Chakraborty 56 DTR 227 (Kar) and Kalyan: Mav): and Company vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). It is also pertinent to mention that for reopening of completed assessment u/s 148, 11 Appeals Shri Hitesh Chhatwal Vs. DCIT, CC-5(4) 40 tangible material need not be from outside the return of income. It can be obtained from the return of income or evidence on record itself The reference may be had of ACIT vs Kanga & Company (2010) TIOL…

M/S. Gokaldas Images Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Bangalore

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

ITA 2359/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and therefore the grounds of appeal is hereby dismissed." It is submitted with respect that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 's reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Kalyanji Mavji & Co. Vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 is wholly misplaced. (v) In these circumstances, it is submitted that the assessment order is void ab inio. Therefore, the said order deserved to be annulled. B.(i) Adverting to the merits, it is submitted that the assessing officer under misconception proceeded on the basis that the appellant after availing loan from the financial institutions h…

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 147Section 250Section 35

…h held thus: Page 21 of 41 "17. It is in this background, it is necessary to look into the judgment of the Apex Court, where the scope of reassessment has been explained. The leading case on the point is Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT, 1976 CTR (SC) 85 : (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC). The Supreme Court dealing with s. 34(1)(b) of 1922 Act, has held as under: "On a combined review of the decisions of this Court the following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of s. 34(1)(b) to the following categories of cases: (1) where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived fr…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…us courts subsequently. There has been unanimity of the courts on this issue that in absence of fresh material indicating escaped income, the AO cannot assume jurisdiction to reopen already concluded assessment. The decision in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co 102 ITR 287 (SC), where it was held that “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” in passing assessment order will give the A.O jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, is not good law in view of the subsequent decision in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society Vs. CIT 119 ITR 996 (SC) wherein it was held that an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same mat…

Jupiter Capital P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1601/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…us courts subsequently. There has been unanimity of the courts on this issue that in absence of fresh material indicating escaped income, the AO cannot assume jurisdiction to reopen already concluded assessment. The decision in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co 102 ITR 287 (SC), where it was held that “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” in passing assessment order will give the A.O jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, is not good law in view of the subsequent decision in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society Vs. CIT 119 ITR 996 (SC) wherein it was held that an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same mat…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1563/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…us courts subsequently. There has been unanimity of the courts on this issue that in absence of fresh material indicating escaped income, the AO cannot assume jurisdiction to reopen already concluded assessment. The decision in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co 102 ITR 287 (SC), where it was held that “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” in passing assessment order will give the A.O jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, is not good law in view of the subsequent decision in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society Vs. CIT 119 ITR 996 (SC) wherein it was held that an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same mat…

ITO Ward 3(2), Trichy vs. Ramanathan Vasantha Priya, Trichy

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1979/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41

…’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of the CIT Vs. M/s. Usha International Limited (2012) 348 ITR 485. iii. The learned CIT(A) had erred in not considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of KalyanjiMavji& Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 102 ITR 287(SC)(1976) wherein it is held that there is no change of opinion if the assessment is reopened on new facts which came to notice subsequently, even though they are already on record. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee, Smt. RamanathanVasanthaPriya is the proprietrix of Sri Ganesan Stores and Sri Ganesan Stores and Readymade locate…

M/S. Satyam Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(4)Dy CIT CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 552/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 147Section 148Section 234B

…he materials on record or from any enquiry or research into facts or law. There is a plethora of judgements that such information need not be from external source-refer CIT and anr. vs. Rinku Chakraborty 56 DTR 227 (Kar) and Kalyanji Mavji and Company vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). It is also pertinent to mention that for reopening of completed assessment u/s.148, tangible material need not be from outside the return of income. It can be obtained from the return of income or evidences on record itself. The reference may be had of ACIT vs. Kanga & Company (2010) - TIOL 464 ITAT Mumbai. It is also relevant to mention th…

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he Division Bench held thus: '17. It is in this background, it is necessary to look into the judgment of the Apex Court, where the scope of reassessment has been explained. The leading case on the point is Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT 1976 CTR (SC) 85 : [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC). The Supreme Court dealing with s. 34(1)(b) of 1922 Act, has held as under: "On a combined review of the decisions of this Court the following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of s. 34(1)(b) to the following categories of cases: (1) where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived fr…

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he Division Bench held thus: '17. It is in this background, it is necessary to look into the judgment of the Apex Court, where the scope of reassessment has been explained. The leading case on the point is Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT 1976 CTR (SC) 85 : [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC). The Supreme Court dealing with s. 34(1)(b) of 1922 Act, has held as under: "On a combined review of the decisions of this Court the following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of s. 34(1)(b) to the following categories of cases: (1) where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived fr…

Mr.M J Aravind, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 222/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 48Section 57

…he Division Bench held thus: '17. It is in this background, it is necessary to look into the judgment of the Apex Court, where the scope of reassessment has been explained. The leading case on the point is Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT 1976 CTR (SC) 85 : [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC). The Supreme Court dealing with s. 34(1)(b) of 1922 Act, has held as under: Page 13 of 24 "On a combined review of the decisions of this Court the following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of s. 34(1)(b) to the following categories of cases: (1) where the information is as to the true and correct state of the…

The Sri Kannikaparameswari Co Op Bank Limited vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeal stands allowed

ITA/65/2017HC Karnataka23 Nov 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR I.T.A.No.65/2017 BETWEEN : THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO-OP. BANK LIMITED, REP BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI R.G.SRINIVASA MURTHY # 165/1-2, 3RD MAIN, P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE - 577 002 PAN: AADTS3885J ...APPELLANT (BY SRI V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. A/W SRI BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, ADV.) AND : THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, SHREE TOWER, OPP: DRR POLYTECHNIC, HADADI ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577…

Indian Rare Earths Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir. 1 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 224/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ITA No. 224/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 1 of 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘C’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Ravish Sood (Judicial Member)] Assessment year: 2010-11 Indian Rare Earths Ltd., ……………….………Appellant Plot 1207, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhivinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 0028 [PAN No. AAACI2799F] Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai ……………………Respondent Appearances by V. Mohan for the appellant Shreekala Pardeshi for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 06/10/2021 Date of pronouncement of order : 02/11/2021…

Jsk Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-8(1), Mumbai

ITA 5891/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 147Section 68

…the issue, no finding either positive or negative can be said to have been arrived at during the course of original assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion as held in the following judgements: 1. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 3. ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC) M/s. JSK Industries Pvt. Ltd. & ors 8.21 In Writ Petition. No.9036 of 2007, Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. Dy CIT &Anr. Decision dt. 14th Feb. 2011 (reported at (2011) 52 DTK (Del) 353 - Ed.) it was held: "10 The term 'failure' on…

Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 6422/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14A

…e materials on record or from any enquiry or research into facts or law. There is a plethora of judgements that such information need not be from external source- refer CIT and anr, vs. Rinku Chakraborty 56 DTR 227 (Kar) and Kalyanji Mavji and Company vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). It is also pertinent to mention that for reopening of completed assessment u/s.148, tangible material need not be from outside the return of income. It can be obtained from the return of income or evidences on record itself. The reference may be had of ACIT vs. Kanga & Company (2010) - TIOL 464 ITAT Murabai. It is also relevant to mention t…

DCIT-CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 6351/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14A

…e materials on record or from any enquiry or research into facts or law. There is a plethora of judgements that such information need not be from external source- refer CIT and anr, vs. Rinku Chakraborty 56 DTR 227 (Kar) and Kalyanji Mavji and Company vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). It is also pertinent to mention that for reopening of completed assessment u/s.148, tangible material need not be from outside the return of income. It can be obtained from the return of income or evidences on record itself. The reference may be had of ACIT vs. Kanga & Company (2010) - TIOL 464 ITAT Murabai. It is also relevant to mention…

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ceat Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, and departmental appeal is treated as infructuous

ITA 673/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit-6(2)(1) M/S. Ceat Ltd. Room No.563, Aaykar Bhawan Rpg House, 463 M.K.Road, Churchgate Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar & Shri Manprit Duggal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 47

…ose provisions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him. The revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen the assessment under s.147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji & Co. V. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC), where a Bench of two learned Judges of this court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the ITO must fall within S.34(1)(b) of the Indian I.T.Act,1922. It appears to us, with respect that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farther than the statute warrants i…