← All Phrases

“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

ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1710/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

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

Asst. CIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1355/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1355/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) Acit-1(3)(1), Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Industries Limited. 3Rd Floor, Indl.Assurance Bldg. Jd Tata Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaact-6047-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Damor ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Neelam Jadhav सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 04/01/2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is Engaged In Manufacturing & Selling Of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The 2 Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y 2009-10 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.29,19,12,503/- On 30/09/2009. The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 07/12/2011. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S. 154 Of The Act Dated 18/03/2013 To Rectify The Alleged Mistake In Assessment Order On Two Counts:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh DamorFor Respondent: Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Neelam Jadhav
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 154(7)Section 40

depreciation. The Assessing Officer examined assessee’s claim of depreciation during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings and allowed the same. Now, on change of opinion the Assessing Officer is disallowing assessee’s claim of higher depreciation. The issue is highly debatable and hence, cannot be subject matter of proceedings

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. O.Arumugasamy, Coimbatore

ITA 777/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

O.Arumugasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

ITA 763/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A. Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 2707/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

A. Senthil Kumar, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

ITA 2570/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. O.Arumugasamy, Coimbatore

ITA 1833/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. O.Arumugasamy, Coimbatore

ITA 1398/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. O.Arumugasamy, Coimbatore

ITA 1011/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. A.Senthil Kumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1010/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Senthil Enterprises, Coimbatore

ITA 709/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri T.M.Muthukumar, Coimbatore

ITA 150/CHNY/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri O.Arumugasamy, Coimbatore

ITA 144/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri O.Arumugasamy, Coimbatore

ITA 143/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri M.Palanisamy, Coimbatore

ITA 142/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri M.Palanisamy, Coimbatore

ITA 141/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 140/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 139/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri. O. Arumugasamy, Coimbatore

ITA 860/CHNY/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri. O. Arumugasamy, Coimbatore

ITA 859/CHNY/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

that reopening is 53 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others invalid and void ab initio on account of change of opinion. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding the reopening as invalid and void ab initio ... learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment on the basis of “change of opinion” cannot be the basis for reopening. 4. In the assessee’s case, the reopening was done after duly following the procedures laid down in the IT Act, 1961. 36. Brief facts are that