← 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

Maya Kumari, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

suffer on mere pretence that it had evaded payment of tax. Rowing and fishing enquiry in hands of AO on mere suspicion or change of opinion could not satisfy expression "reason to believe" exposing Assessee for reopening of assessment. Notice for reopening of assessment was not in consonance

Khaitan Winding Wire Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 878/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana, &For Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

hands of the authority who may modify it, or even destroy it, before it is made known, based on subsequent information, thinking or change of opinion. To make the order complete and effective, it should be issued, so as to be beyond the control of the authority concerned

Gnana Kathir Singarayar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

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

ITA 5503/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Magnum Equity The Acit Circle 4 (3), बनाम/ Broking Ltd., Room No. 638, 6Th Vs. D-30, Empire Mahal, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 806, Dr. B A Road, M.K. Road, Khodadad, Mumbai - 400023 Mumbai - 400014 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5661N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhle, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 88E

information has been found or identified by the AO to make re-assessment proceedings valid and it is only a mere change of opinion and relied on the judicial decisions and written submissions and prayed for allowing grounds of appeal of the Assessee. Contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order ... available on the record in the original assessment and no new material is available for re- assessment and it is only mere change of opinion. We find the assessee is a public limited company and the Books Of Accounts are Audited under the provisions of Companies Act and the Income

Uppalapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Uppalapadu, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

ITA 523/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan Sआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.523/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Uppalapadu Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Ward-2(1), Society Limited, Guntur. Uppalapadu, Guntur. Pan: Aaaau4669G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती Shri R. Siva Rama Krishna, "ारा/Assessee By: Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.01.2024 Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Read With Sections 144 & 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Uppalapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited Vs. Ito

For Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

assessing officer prior to 16 Uppalapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited vs. ITO 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

Kamaluddin Hamed Salmani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1284/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 45

Rs.49,83,339/- filed u/sec.139(1) of the Act dated 05.08.2016. He submitted that, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on mere change of opinion without providing any new facts, documents or reasons in his possession and issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 which is not illegal

Shreyas Anil Talpade, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 6913/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 69B

basis of which the additions are made and without giving the appellant an opportunity of cross examination e) merely on the basis of change of opinion since the assessment was duly completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 17.01.2014 f) Without providing reasons recorded

Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal Ito, Ward – 2(3)(4), Flat No.304, 3Rd Floor, Room No.613, Vatika Township, Near Model, Vs. Aaaykar Bhavan, Township, Parvat Patia Majura Gate, Surat - 395010. Surat - 395002. Pan No. Adspk 6097N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rasesh, CA
Section 144Section 148Section 69A

contended that the assessee, while assailing the reassessment, contended that the assessee, while assailing the reassessment, contended that the same was a mere change of opinion and devoid of any live nexus same was a mere change of opinion and devoid of any live nexus same was a mere change ... plea of the assessee that the constrained to observe that the plea of the assessee that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion stands bereft of reopening was based on a mere change of opinion stands bereft reopening was based on a mere change of opinion stands

Smt. Pushpa Agrawal, Indore vs. ITO Ward 5(2), Indore, Aaykar Bhawan, Opposite White Church, Residency Area

Appeal is allowed

ITA 499/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

opinion, has not brought in any new/fresh material on record. Absence of new/fresh material for reopening of the case would amount to mere change in opinion. Further, 2. CIT. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (187 Taxmann 312) SC b. Jal Hotel Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (184 Taxman 1) Delhi ¢ Cartini India ... such situation is not justified. 7. Itis now a settled law by virtue of various Judicial pronouncements that reopening based on mere change in opinion is bad-in-law and void ab-initio. B.M. Associates v, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Circle 29(2), Mumbai (90 taxmann.com 162) (Bombay

Rohit Prakashchandra Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 128/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 147Section 148

occasion to form any opinion and, therefore, the reason recorded by the AO on such information was correct and there was no change of opinion. In the present case also, the information received by the Assessing Officer was specific and no scrutiny assessment was made in this case earlier. Therefore

Melco Sales Private Limited, Mumbai (Maharashtra) vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 9(1), Kolkata, Kolkata (West Bengal)

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1604/KOL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 68

merits and remand report was called from the AO on merits. Dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay is clearly based on change of opinion and is wrong and unjustified, as it has resulted into depriving appellant for remedy of justice despite the fact of non-receipt of assessment

Digambar Ramchandra Sawant Bhosle, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer 1 (1), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 1772/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. Mitali Parekh, ARSFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr.DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 68

without appreciating the facts and Documentation, the Order were initiated on the borrowed satisfaction, without the Assessing Officer forming their own independent opinion, Change of opinion and also without following and complying with other mandatory provisions of the Act. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... illegal and invalid without appreciating the facts and documentation, initiated on the borrowed satisfaction, and based on change of opinion and also without following and complying with other mandatory provisions of the Act. It may be stated here that neither before the AO nor the ld.CIT(A) the assessee contested

Uday Punj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the reassessment proceedings initiated in this case is bad in law

ITA 3087/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Uday Punj, Vs. Dcit, Circle 19 (1), Chimes, New Delhi. 55, Sultanpur Farms, New Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaapp1309F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rahul Khare, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 30.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 18.03.2025 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Learned Cit-A Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Reopening Of The Case U/S 147/148 Without Appreciating The Facts Which Is Not Only Bad In Law But Also Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 73

duly examined by him during the course of assessment proceedings. Such actions of the AO would be hit by the judicial bar of “change of opinion". Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India ... assessment order would not validate assumption of jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the Act being hit by the judicial bar of "change of opinion". Reliance in this regard is placed on the Full Bench decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Usha International

Kajal Batra, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-52(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as above

ITA 2419/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69A

arrived at during the course of the original assessment proceedings in such situations and facts of the case there is no question of change of opinion as upheld by the jurisprudence as under- 1. A.L.A. Firm Vs. CIT(Mad) 102 ITR 622 2. Ess Kay Engineering ... EMAIndia Ltd. Vs ACIT(All) 30 DTR 82 h. It is worthwhile to mention that the argument of change of opinion comes to rescue of assessee only when Assessing Officer has taken one of permissible views at the time of original proceedings. A wrong application of law cannot be held

Vertex Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 26(2), C R Building, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2064/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act is liable to be quashed being proceedings u/s 147 initiated merely on the basis of change of opinion on the same subject matter which have already been assessed u/s 143(3) which is in violation of law settled ... purported reasons that prompted the AO to reassess and disallow the expenditure incurred on DAP and production and translation expenses only demonstrate a change of opinion on the part of the AO, which cannot form the basis of reopening the assessment. *** 28. Consequently, one of the essential ingredients for reopening

Baani Landbase Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5944/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5944/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Baani Landbase Pvt Ltd., Dcit, Corporate One, Ground Floor, Vs. Circle-4(2), Plot No.5, District Center, Jasola, Central Revenue Building, Delhi. I.P. Estate, Delhi. Pan No.Aadcb0237E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 292B

dated 26.04.2021 do not constitute mistake apparent from record, for the reason that the same issue was examined during assessment proceedings and constitutes change of opinion; (iv) That the addition made by the Ld. AO is not pursuant to mistake apparent from record particularly as Ld. AO had issued Notice

Janta Land Promoters Pvt Ltd, Mohali vs. The Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 618/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263Section 68

exist: the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. An order cannot be revised merely for a change of opinion or because the PCIT feels deeper or wider enquiries could have been made; where the AO has raised queries, considered replies, and taken a plausible

Satish Vishnu Thombare, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Varsha Prafulla Zende, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1656/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

14/06/2019, Petitioner filed objections against the reopening of assessment, stating that the notice issued under Section 148 was issued merely based on a change of opinion without any fresh or tangible material on record. It is also stated that the notice under Section 148 had been issued without prior sanction

Gmm Pfaulder Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 839/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.839/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Gmm Pfaulder Ltd. The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, B-Jadav Chambers Ahmedabad-1 V/S. Navrangpura H.O. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ashram Road Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcg 0563 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Pr. Cit” For Short] Dated 07/03/2025 Passed In Exercise Of His Revisionary Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020- 21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Gmm Pfaulder Ltd. Vs. Pcit Asst. Year : 2020-21 2

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 32Section 80G

concluded by the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings and upholding the revision proceeding under section 263 of the Act on account of change of opinion, is not permissible in law. 3. Disallowance of provision for warranty amounting to Rs.48,50,000/-: 3.1 On the facts and circumstances ... concluded by the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings and upholding the revision proceeding under section 263 of the Act on account of change of opinion, is not permissible in law. 43 The Pr.CIT also failed to consider the settled principle of law that a payment made towards Corporate Social

Navnirman Infracon Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 689/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Addl. Sr. DR
Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

suspect and not reasons to belief as contemplated u/s.148 of the Act. He submitted that the reopening of assessment is clearly a change of opinion and should be quashed. 8. On the other hand, Id. D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities. 9. We have considered the rival submissions

Excellence Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are

ITA 208/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

alia claiming that the AO did not provide recorded reasons,approval of specified authorities was not taken, the reopening is based on a change of opinion and also it is based on borrowed reasons etc. The ld.CIT(A) after detailed discussion backed by various case laws held the reassessment proceedings ... occasion to form any opinion on any of the issue arising out of the return filed by assessee. The concept of change of opinion would therefore no application it is equally well settled that at the stage of re-opening of the assessment, the court would not minutely examine