← 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

Mr. Anoop Harikishin Tejwani, Thane vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kalyan

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 27/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." 1.2 The order is being passed and amount is disallowed based on change in opinion of assessing officer, The Honorable Supreme Court held in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Limited ... same set of documents .But assessing officer rejected the source of cash deposits of Rs. 1935150/-and disallowance is made due to change in opinion .The Honourable Supreme Court has held in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs Kelvinator of India Liminted 2010 2 SCC 723 that

Triveni Filling Systems, Mumbai vs. ITO - 25(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 348/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 133(6)

confirming the re-opening of the assessment without appreciating. The fact that the re-opening of the assessment on the basis of change of opinion is bad in law. There is no valid reason recorded for re-opening of the assessment. And there is no' tangible material for re-opening

Naresh Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-46(2), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8108/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 43(5)(d)

question about the source of this Rs 800,000/- deposited in HDFC bank a/c which was beyond her power as this amounts to change of opinion. A cash Flow chart of the appellant was also asked. The appellant filed the cash flow chart (Copy attached). This chart clearly includes this

Kumar Engineering Works, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2919/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2006-07 Kumar Engineering Works, Vs Acit, B-38, Gt Karnal Road, Circle-20(1), Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadfk6388K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : .02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

case and in law in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer to initiate the reassessment proceedings which was based on change of opinion and there being no allegation that the Appellant has not disclosed truly and fully all material facts for completion of the original assessment. 3 5. That ... Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International Ltd. (supra), while deciding the issue of change of opinion for reopening of the assessment has observed as under:- “Held, by the Full Bench (i) that reassessment proceedings can be validly initiated in case return

M/S. Centum Electronics Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised

ITA 946/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Centum Electronics Ltd. #44, Ground Floor, Deputy Commissioner Of Khb Industrial Area Vs. Income-Tax Yelahanka New Town Circle-2(1)(1) Bengaluru 560 106 Bengaluru Pan No : Aakcs7429L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Bengaluru-2 Dated 28.2.2019 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are Reproduced As Follows:- That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In 1. So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 2. On Facts In Justifying The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Order Against M/S. Solectron Ems India Ltd Even Though The Said Entity Does Not Exist On The Date Of The Passing The Order. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 3. On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Assessment Order Against A Non-Existing Person. 4. That The Order U/S 147 Is Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R
Section 10BSection 147Section 40

income of Solectron EMS India Ltd has escaped assessment without any tangible material and the formation of such a belief is a mere change of opinion which is not permissible in law. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in law and 8. on facts in not adjudicating

Varun Khandelwal, New Delhi vs. Prcit-24, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7891/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, C. AFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, [CIT] – D. R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

revision of order u/s 263 is not permissible. d) Section 263 cannot be invoked in case where two views are possible or for change of opinion. 6. The ld. PCIT rejected the reply of the assessee and observed as under:- “2. On perusal of the record it has been observed

Priya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

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

ITA 7303/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

appellant in the case of CIT vs. M/s Kelvinator of India Ltd. is not applicable as in the present case there is no change of opinion but the case was reopened after carrying out proper enquiries/investigations. The entry provider Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma admitted the fact that the concerns controlled/managed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1317/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2008-09
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 11(5)(xii)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

tangible material for taking a divergent stand in respect of this issue and make addition thereon. It only clearly reflects the change of opinion in the mind of the ld. AO. The law is very well settled that no re-assessment can be made based on change of opinion ... which had live link for formation of belief that the claim of assessee was incorrect. This is a clear case of change of opinion of the ld. AO. We find that out of the gross receipts of Rs.43,28,77,779/- during the year under consideration, assessee trust had duly

M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. India Branch, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2572/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2572/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, Mahatma Gandhi International Taxation, Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 31.12.2015 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. —India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant'), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Learned Ao') Dated October 15, 2019 Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 23, 2019 Issued By The Drp U/S 144C(5) Of The Act ('The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 156Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)

Erred in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act'), basis a mere change of opinion in respect of transactions/dealings in respect of stream of income which has already been considered in detail by the AO and the TPO during the original assessment proceedings

Ferani Hotels Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4 (1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 7610/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80I

that no infirmity in the action of Assessing Officer where A.O. had second thoughts on the same material which is, in fact, mere change of opinion which cannot form the basis for reopen or reassessment. The CIT (A) erred that A.O. has no power to review and reassessment

Mr. Tulsi C Bhimjyani, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 429/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सुं./ Ita No. 429/Mum/2020 (यनधाियण िषि / Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Tulsi C. Bhimjyani The Dy. Commissioner Of 301, A Wing, Fortune 2000, Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Bandra East, Vs. Mumbai-400 051 (अऩीऱाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./Pan No. Aabpb4740P अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से / Respondent By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr सुनिाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R प्रशाुंत महर्षि, ऱेखा सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Prashant Maharishi, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

facts in not appreciating that the reopening of the assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment year was merely on the basis of change of opinion which is not permissible under the law and thus was not a valid reopening of a completed assessment. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) erred ... with him but on perusal of the same material which he verified during the original assessment proceedings. He further contended that it is change of opinion which does not allow reassessment proceedings. For this, proposition he relied upon several Mr. Tulsi C. Bhimjyani; AY 09-10 judicial precedence. He further

Sambhavanath Infrabuild Farms (Successor to Lodha Construction P. Ltd P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-7(3), Mumbai

ITA 1897/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesambhavnath Infrabuild & Farms Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Cit– Central Circle – 7(3) {Successor To Lodha Construction Pvt. Ltd.,} Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai - 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aalcs1394M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153ASection 69D

assessee has argued that there was no reason to establish that the income had actually escaped assessment and therefore, reopening is based on change of opinion. Accordingly, the assessee argued that notice issued u/s. 148 was without jurisdiction and the order passed u/s. 147 was unlawful. In the assessment order

Krishna Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 38(3), New Delhi

ITA 6356/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh information. Since the belief

Gulshan Mercantile Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Muzaffarnagar

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6679/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Gulshan Mercantile Urban Vs Acit Cooperative Bank Ltd. Circle-1 129-130C, New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar, Muzaffarnagar Uttar Pradesh Pan-Aaajg0808L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Adv Respondent By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2021

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 80P(2)(d)

justified in sustaining the penalty. He submitted that the assessee neither concealed any income nor any inaccurate particulars were furnished. It was mere change of opinion, he further submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not considered the submissions of the assessee in the right perspective. He submitted that the claim

Morgan Ventures Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8238/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiyaita No. 8238/Del/2019 [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151

completed u/s 143(3] of the Act, after due verification of return of income, the notice u/s 148 is merely on account of change of opinion and for the purposes of re-appreciation of material already on record which is impermissible. (iv) That the objection raised by audit party

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. N G Balu Reddy HUF, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 651/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chetan R, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

after giving such an opinion he initiated action against the HUF by issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act on 08.03.2013 by changing his opinion that capital gain tax is to be assessed in the hand of HUF and not in Individual for the AY- 2009-10. Hence ... under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. Further there was no new tangible material, and assessment was done only by change of opinion and suspicious that there is escapement of income. Further it is submitted that reopening can never be done on the basis of change

Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 940/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra), the assessment order cannot be set aside. 16. Otherwise also, it is purely a case of change of opinion for the reason that similar nature of transaction of day trading of shares and F&O has been held to be business income/business loss

Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 939/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra), the assessment order cannot be set aside. 16. Otherwise also, it is purely a case of change of opinion for the reason that similar nature of transaction of day trading of shares and F&O has been held to be business income/business loss

Sastvijay Investment & Consultancy Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(4), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

into by the assessee with a number of concerns which had made accommodation entries and they were not genuine transactions, was neither a change of opinion nor did it convey a particular interpretation of a specific provision which was done in a particular manner in the original assessment and sought

M/S Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 6022/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri KVSR. Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

which, we are afraid, Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to re-open. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power ... power to re-assess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat