“change of opinion”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1472,292 judgments

The decision most relied on for change of opinion is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on change of opinion

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,673

citing judgments

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.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court

695

citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

256 ITR 1 · 2002 · High Court

439

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment under Section 147 based on a mere change of opinion regarding the same material available during the original assessment. Reopening requires fresh, tangible material or information that leads to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.

82 ITR 50 · 1971 · Supreme Court

382

citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.

354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court

366

citing judgments

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

CIT v. Foramer France

264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court

253

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT

308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court

248

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd.

325 ITR 285 · 2010 · High Court

243

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid and void ab initio if initiated based on 'borrowed satisfaction' without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind, or merely on documents already available on record without fresh tangible material.

Judgments citing change of opinion

Derby Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 14, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 3316/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Derby Developers Vs. Pr.Cit-14 Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, 203, Capri Building, M.K. Road, Opposite Hdil Towers, Mumbai - 400020 Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccd2140F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Am: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit- 14, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

learned Pr.CIT has erred in passing revision order u/s 263 of the IT Act of the concluded assessment merely on the basis of change of opinion on facts already present at the time of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act; 5. The learned Pr.CIT has erred

Rajarathnam'S Jewels, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 370/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. H. Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133ASection 143(3)

view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the reopening of assessment of all the years under consideration is on account of "change of opinion" and hence the reopening is not valid'. Accordingly we quash the orders passed by the tax authorities for all the years under consideration

Kamal Kishore Rathi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7760/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopalआ.अ.सं.7759 & 7760/मुं/2019 िन.व.2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr.AR

Section 131Section 147

opening were available at the time of the original assessment therefore the re-opening 14 ITAs No.7759 & 7760/Mum/2019 proceeding is change of opinion and no fresh information was available for issuing notice u/s 148 of the income tax act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... available before Assessing Officer during the original assessment and therefore reopening and recording reasons to believe that income escaped are based on merely change of opinion, which is not permitted in law. In support of the contention, the Learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench

Kamal Kishore Rathi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7759/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopalआ.अ.सं.7759 & 7760/मुं/2019 िन.व.2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr.AR

Section 131Section 147

ACIT Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai vs. Centwin Estates and Industries P Ltd, Chennai

In the result revenue’s appeal stand dismissed which makes assessee’s cross-objections academic in nature

ITA 29/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 41(1)

assailed the rejection of legal ground by Ld. CIT(A). 2. The Ld. AR assailed the reassessment proceedings on the grounds of change of opinion. The Ld. AR also submitted that in the absence of fresh tangible material, the assessment could not be reopened. Reliance has been placed ... within 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. 3.2 The Ld. AO denied the allegation that it was a case of change of opinion since the issue was not discussed in the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). Proceeding further, Ld. AO added the amount of Rs.427.07 Lacs

Parthiban, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-7(2), Chennai

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

ITA 562/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 562/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Parthiban, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 83-A, Door No. 9, Thiruvallur Non Corporate Ward 7(2), Street, Jagadhambigai Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 050. [Pan:Biipp0005R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Sitaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Dated 17.01.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 On 14.07.2014 Returning Nil Income & Agricultural Income Of ₹.43,00,530/-. The Case Was Selected Through Cass & The Assessment Was Completed Under 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(1)(A)

issued notice under section 148 of the Act and reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act is clearly amounts to change of opinion, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. This issue is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the judgement

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pebble Bay Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

ITA 5744/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari, DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 951/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Anil. S. Sant, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

assessment U/s 143 (3) r.ws. 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 was completed merely on the basis of change of opinion. In view of the above, the said order passed should be squashed and necessary direction should be given in this regard. 2. Without Prejudice to the Ground ... assessee suffers from a huge obsession of the fact that the re- opening of assessment, as done in its case, is nothing but change of opinion and there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment

M/S. Kwality Biscuits Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 675/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55(2)

concealed income nor has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The impugned assessment proceedings have been commenced purely as a result of a change in opinion and hence the same is bad in law and void-ab-initio. 6. The learned Authorities below are not justified in determining the income ... conclusion that certain income has escaped assessment. The ld. AR submitted that reopening of impugned assessment is purely borne out of the change of opinion and not based on any fresh material or additional evidence which has come to the possession of the AO. The ld AR further submitted that

Dhana-Shree Developers, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT -27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1036/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

case and in Law, the learned PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 to the case of the Appellant only by way of change of opinion, without Dhana–Shree Developers ITA No.1036/Mum./2022 pointing out any error in the order of the A.O. and also by disregarding detailed submissions made ... provision of sec. 263 merely because he wants to take a view different from the one taken by the Assessing Officer and thereby changing the opinion of the Assessing Officer by his opinion. b. In the facts of the case and in Law, the learned PCIT erred in holding that

ITO 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M Pallonji Enerprises P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas dismissed whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1907/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-1(2)(3), M/S M Pallonji Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 527, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 3357 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 68

Officer did not find any infirmity therein. infirmity therein. Thus, the reopening is nothing but a Thus, the reopening is nothing but a change of opinion. change of opinion. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in On the facts and in the circumstances ... reopened without any new or fresh tangible material and based reopened without any new or fresh tangible material and based merely on the “change of opinion change of opinion” on the material which was on the material which was already available with the Assessing Officer. already available with the Assessing

R.Rajagopal Tondaiman, Trichy vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Trichy

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

ITA 525/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.525/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri R. Rajagopal Tondaiman, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 4-D, New No. 22, Collector Income Tax, Office Road, Trichy 620 001. Central Circle 1, Trichy. [Pan:Afbpr0712E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 30.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is A Hereditary Of Raja Of Pudukottai & Stated That He Is Assessed To Tax In The Status Of Huf & Individual. The Property At Cenotaph Road, Chennai Was Given To M/S. Doshi Housing Ltd. On A Development Agreement Entered Into On 30.01.2006 Through A Power Of Attorney. The Assessing Officer Has 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

same material and there was no new tangible material and thus, the ld. Counsel has submitted that it was only a change of opinion and the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 applies. He further argued ... facts with no failure on the part 5 I.T.A. No.525/Chny/20 of the assessee to disclose material facts would tantamount to mere "change of opinion". In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) has observed and held as under: (quote

S.Victor Arockiam, Ariyalur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Trichy

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 348/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

Court at Delhi and explained the legal position. There was thus no assessment under Section 143(1)(a) and therefore, the question of change of opinion did not arise. A reference to Section 147 therefore, was made in the context of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 328/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

learned assessing officer has taken a diametrically opposite view which in the opinion of the assessee would amount to change of opinion and consequently without any incriminating materials no addition is permissible on a change of opinion. ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page ... same. Subsequently the same has been followed in the other years. This clearly shows that the disallowance is merely on the basis of change of opinion and not tenable under law. ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 28 of 41 10.13 Without prejudice, regarding the past years

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 327/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 324/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 323/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1714/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelife Insurance Corporation Of India V. Dcit – 3(2)(1) Central Office, F&A Department Room No. 608 3Rd Floor, West Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent Acit – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Central Office Room No. 674, 6Th Floor “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

view on the basis of the communication noted earlier, the act of reopening the assessment would have to be regarded as a mere change of opinion which has also not been based on any tangible material. Consequently, we hold that the reopening of the assessment is contrary