← 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

Ess Gee Trendz Private Limited, Peeragarhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3012/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 68

done keeping in mind the above facts and hence the above conclusion that income has escaped assessment is not merely based on change of opinion. Hence, necessary sanction u/s 151(1) to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act, for A.Y. 2015-16 is required to assess the escaped income

Ess Gee Trendz Private Limited, Peeragarhi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3011/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 68

done keeping in mind the above facts and hence the above conclusion that income has escaped assessment is not merely based on change of opinion. Hence, necessary sanction u/s 151(1) to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act, for A.Y. 2015-16 is required to assess the escaped income

Safal Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT(Central), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1138/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms.Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 153CSection 153DSection 263

proceedings the Ld.AO has not verified the details in the assessment proceedings is unjustified and bad in law and merely under the grab change of opinion by the Ld. PCIT. 3. The Ld. PCIT has erred in not considering the reply filed by the appellant vide letter dated 24.03.2025 wherein ... proceedings the Ld.AO has not verified the details in the assessment proceedings is unjustified and bad in law and merely under the grab change of opinion by the Ld. PCIT. 3. The Ld. PCIT has erred in not considering the reply filed by the appellant vide letter dated 12.03.2025 wherein

Safal Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT(Central), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1137/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms.Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 153CSection 153DSection 263

proceedings the Ld.AO has not verified the details in the assessment proceedings is unjustified and bad in law and merely under the grab change of opinion by the Ld. PCIT. 3. The Ld. PCIT has erred in not considering the reply filed by the appellant vide letter dated 24.03.2025 wherein ... proceedings the Ld.AO has not verified the details in the assessment proceedings is unjustified and bad in law and merely under the grab change of opinion by the Ld. PCIT. 3. The Ld. PCIT has erred in not considering the reply filed by the appellant vide letter dated 12.03.2025 wherein

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad vs. Arun Kumar, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 67Section 68

complied. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Arun Kumar 10. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that re-opening is based on the change of opinion on the same facts. The issue on which basis the case was re-opened has been examined and accepted ... duly examined by the AO during the course of original proceedings. Thus, the case of the assessee was re-opened on the change of opinion which is bad in law. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Arun Kumar 13. The ld. A.R of the assessee submitted that four week time

Pothina Satyanarayana, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 568/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.568/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pothina Satyanarayana, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Ahdpp1312N Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 10/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Pothina Satyanarayana Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 54F

escaped assessment, (3) no enquiry being conducted by the assessing officer prior to the issuance of notice; and reopening is based on change of opinion of the assessing officer and (4) lastly the mandatory procedure laid down by this Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income

Purnagiri Rice Mills, Shahjahanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Shahjahanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/LKW/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.251/Lkw/2017 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purnagiri Rice Mills, V. Income Tax Officer Meeran Pur Katra, Range-1(5), Shahajhanpur-242301. Shahajhanpur-242301. Pan:Aahfp6663R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28 10 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 26 11 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

record on appraisal of the documents filed/explained during the course of Page 2 of 12 original assessment proceedings which tantamount to a change of opinion only and therefore the reopening of assessment was bad in law. 4. That without prejudice, the Id. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that ... part of the assessee in disclosing true and correct particulars of income and three, the re-opening ex facie is based on “change of opinion” which could not be done in the light of binding precedents. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, in support of these objections, placed reliance

Lic Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5037/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Mr. Sunil Bhandari &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 80G

Mumb 1(2) (1) Mumbai, reported in [2024] 161 taxmann.com 18 (Bombay). ai, reported in [2024] 161 taxmann.com 18 (Bombay). c) "Change of opinion" is not permissible c) "Change of opinion" is not permissible On the facts and in law, initiation of reassessment proceeding now On the facts ... initiation of reassessment proceeding now On the facts and in law, initiation of reassessment proceeding now is "Change of Opinion" which is not permissible. Appellant places is "Change of Opinion" which is not permissible. Appellant places is "Change of Opinion" which is not permissible. Appellant places reliance, among others

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4829/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 35DSection 37(1)

time limit due to covid shows that not claiming this deduction has nothing to do with the problems related to covid. It is change of opinion of initially claiming against the share premium and subsequently making a claim in the assessment proceedings. The appellant has not made the claim

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4501/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 35DSection 37(1)

time limit due to covid shows that not claiming this deduction has nothing to do with the problems related to covid. It is change of opinion of initially claiming against the share premium and subsequently making a claim in the assessment proceedings. The appellant has not made the claim

Dhananjay Estate and Reality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3808/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandhananjay Estate & Reality Vs. Ito Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Cts 40-44, S. V. Road, Goregaon 400 020 (W), Mumbai-400 104. Pan: Aabcd8868M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 63

investigation by the Ld. Assessing Officer with reference to the agriculture income and, therefore, the reopening of the same tantamount only to a change of opinion, which is not permissible in law and, therefore, the order passed deserves to be quashed. 3. That the Ld. PCIT-4, Mumbai has failed ... appreciate that the provisions of section 263 of the Act does not permit to reopen the assessment merely on change of opinion without there being any actual lack of inquiry or verification by the Ld. Assessing Officer and, therefore, the order passed deserves to be quashed. 4. That

Antony Lara Enviro Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT- 1, Thane

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

ITA 3505/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: 01/10/2025
Section 115JSection 263

Assessing Officer and thereby changing the taken by the Assessing Officer and thereby changing the taken by the Assessing Officer and thereby changing the opinion of the Assessing Officer by his opinion. opinion of the Assessing Officer by his opinion.  In the facts of the case ... invoke provisions of because PCIT had no proper jurisdiction to invoke provisions of revision and merely a change revision and merely a change of opinion. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts are that Briefly stated, the material facts are that the assessment the assessment under section

Khajamohiaddin Ghousemohiaddin Syed, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2852/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh MilwaniFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 444DSection 44A

material on record once one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer. It is also not permissible to reopen purely on change of opinion. A general statement that the escapement of income is by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly

Ashok Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT 20, New Delhi

ITA 2641/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2018-19 Ashok Kumar Jain, Vs. Pr. Cit-20, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi. F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aakpj1872B

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Pooja Swaroop, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 263Section 69C

assessee specifically raised the point of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, contending that the notice of reopening was prompted by a mere change of opinion. The AO rejected plea of the assessee but the AAC accepted this ground and also held the reassessment to be bad in law on jurisdictional

A. T. Invofin Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 26, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1883/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act and which as per ld. Counsel for the assessee was nothing but a case of change of opinion. It was contended that the assessment in this case of assessee was completed u/s 143(2) of the Act and the notice of reopening

Sigma Paradise, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

The appeal is allowed

ITA 823/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA; &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 50CSection 6

proceedings the appellant relied on certain case laws in its submission with regard to its contention that the reopening was based on a change of opinion by the AO since, the appellant’s case had already been scrutinized u/s 143(3) prior to the reopening. It claimed that valuation ... Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del.) had examined in detail as to what constitutes change of opinion. If a subject-matter, entry or claim/deduction is not examined by an Assessing Officer, it cannot be presumed that he must have examined

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross-

ITA 794/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliay
Section 132(4)Section 147

facts that were subsequently obtained by the Assessing Officer to draw a different inference from the same material would amount merely to a change of opinion. Such a re-appraisal, it was submitted, cannot be made the basis for reopening a concluded assessment. 7.3 The learned counsel next submitted that ... Officer had not revisited any issue previously examined in the original assessment, and therefore, the reopening could not be characterised as a mere change of opinion. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record on the issue of the validity of the reassessment

The Panchratna Co Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1433/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Poojan Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR.DR.)
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

escaped assessment; iii) Why reason to believe as per Annexure to the show cause notice issued in our case cannot be considered as change of opinion to disallow deduction u/s 80P of the Act under the given facts; and iv) how quantum of alleged escaped Income ... material on record once one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer. It is also not permissible to reopen purely on change of opinion. A general statement that the escapement of income is by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Moradabad vs. Swati Menthol and Allied Chemicals Limited, Rampur

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

ITA 5090/DEL/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 68

only a review of the original assessment already completed u/s 143(3). The reopening u/s 147 would tantamount to change of opinion, iv) there is no independent application of mind by the Ld. A.O. except relying mechanically upon an enquiry conducted by I&Cl wing, the copy of which

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and cross-objection of Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1445/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., B-94, Tax, Circle 4(2), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 Pan :Aadcc0273D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

what was very much available, the re-opening in such circumstance is impermissible and Assessment proceedings cannot be initiated on basis of mere change in opinion 7.8 The assessee has already been scrutinized under section 143(3) of the act wherein the Id. AO has assessed the income ... Advocate/AR appeared from time to time and filed necessary details which are placed on record. Thus, the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 constitutes change of opinion which is not permissible under the law. Reliance can be placed on the following judgements:- ITA No. 1445/Del.2023 & CO No.148/Del/2023 a. Commissoner of income