“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

Sarena Private Limited, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Centre Delhi-3, Delhi

ITA 2479/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ambareesha Agrawal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

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

M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1549/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

which jurisdiction has been assumed by the AO u/s 147 has been discussed by the DRP and hence it is a case of change of opinion. The contention of the counsel for revenue was that the DRP cannot touch those issues which were not subject matter of the assessment ... capital gains tax and, to contend otherwise, in the purported reasons for re-opening of the assessment, would be nothing but a 'change of opinion' which is not permissible in law. 15. Perusal of the above factual observations as taken note by the Hon’ble High Court would show that

M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1900/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Popular Motorworld Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(5), Kochi

ITA 538/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neetu S, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

appraisal of facts already on record during the original assessment. The re-opening of the assessment is thus on a mere change of opinion, which Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to take note of and thus not followed the various Supreme Court decisions in this regard 3. Commissioner ... assessment proceedings on the ground that re- assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act have been initiated on the ground of mere change of opinion after examining the material which already formed part of the assessment record. Per contra, the stand taken by the Revenue is that the income

Madhuri Sunil Zode, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted

ITA 419/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Madhuri Sunil Zode, Ito, Ward 20(2)(1), Flat No. 8, 8Th Floor, Singers Wood, Piramal Chamber, 27Th Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaapz 1530 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Representative, however, opposed the condonation, contending that the assessee remained supine for over 500 days without any diligence. It was urged that mere change of opinion by another consultant cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning such inordinate delay, particularly when the assessee, as a prudent litigant, could have sought timely ... assessee has failed to establish any sufficient cause warranting condonation of delay. The reasons set out in the affidavit amount only to a change of opinion and misplaced reliance on professional advice, which cannot be a ground to defeat the mandatory scheme of limitation. 4.4 Accordingly, the application for condonation

Hemani Industires Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 2963/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2963/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Hemani Industries Limited C-701-703, 7Th Floor, Neelkanth Business Park, R.N Road, Vidyavihar (West) Mumbai-400 086 Pan : Aaach1117Q

For Appellant: Shri Malav P. Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 2 SCC 723, holding that a mere change of opinion cannot be a ground for reopening a concluded assessment. However, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's ruling did not address the merits

M/S. Aman Enterprises, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Aman Enterprises, D.C.I.T., 22, Park Street, Near Doranda College, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaifa 9921 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

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

assessee to disclose any information or that he had not disclosed true and full material facts, it was a case of mere change of opinion and, thus, such reopening was not permissible. As such, in light of the above mentioned facts and case laws, we submit that the initiation

Raj International Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6286/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal Adv. & Ms. Neha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the reopening is merely on the basis of change of opinion without any reason to believe that any income has escaped assessment. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that instant case is of reason

Raj International Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6285/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal Adv. & Ms. Neha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

The Lunawada Urban Co Op Credit Society Limited, Mahisagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Lunawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 809/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

facts in dismissing the ground raised by the appellant challenging reopening of the scrutiny assessment done on the basis of change of opinion when allowability of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act was thoroughly verified by AO in original assessment. 2. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred

M/S. Anadya Technologies Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 589/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishram/S Anadya Technologies Vs Ito, Ward-8(1), Kolkata Private Limited, 92/1B, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Sarani, Kolkata Pan No. :Aadca 7382 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Altaf Hussain, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT-Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

opinion that the conditions precedent for reopening of the assessment beyond four years are not satisfied. The reassessment was on change of opinion. There are no allegations of suppression of material fact. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the High Court in setting aside the reopening notice ... taken by the High Court. The special leave petition stands dismissed. 6. It was the submission that as the reopening is based on change of opinion and as there is no recording of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts as required

Viramgam Mahesana Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 119/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarviramgam Mahesana Project Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 17(1), E – 9, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Ndse Part 2, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan :Aabcv7027L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Order : 14.08.2025 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. Thisappeal Is Filed By The Assesseeagainst The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)]Dated 22.10.2014For Assessment Year 2006-07 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1 That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceedings, U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act & Also Failed To Appreciate That Neither The Mandatory Requirements Of Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act Nor The Pre-Conditions For Invoking The Provisions

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

this case. 3. The assessee challenges validity of re-opening of assessment on as many as three counts: A CHANGE OF OPINION (i) During original assessment proceedings, the claim of depreciation on the railway track as build and own by the assessee was allowed after due examination by the concerned ... year the assessee was owner of the railway track the re-opening of the assessment on that very excuse is hit by a change of opinion in ways more than one. 4 In State Bank of India vs. ACIT (411 ITR 664), the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay

M/S Anil Hastkala Pvt. Ltd., Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 727/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 263oSection 69A

order, we do not find any error in the order of the AO. Rather, it is a matter of merely change of opinion, which is strictly not permissible in the law. In the order of the Ld. PCIT we don’t find any substance which establishes that the order passed

Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 3511/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 32A

accordance with mandate of law, the ld. AR raised multiple contentions, reads as under: “i. The reopening was based on mere change of opinion which is not permissible as per law. ii. The genesis of reopening was the same material available with the AO on assessment records ... truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for AY 2014-15." A. Reopening of assessment for the captioned AY, basis a mere change in opinion is not permissible and hence reopening is invalid and bad in law. 14. In this regard, the Appellant wishes to submit that deduction claimed

M/S. India Exposition Mart Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1079/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhshri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra, Accountnat Member Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Khanna, C. A./NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.S. Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

Learned DCIT erred in law by reopening assessment u/s 147 Income Tax Act on the basis of change in opinion. The Learned DCIT erred in law by re-opening assessment u/s 147 Income Tax Act without any new or fresh materials not disclosed during course of assessment. The Learned DCIT ... been considered and the same are not tenable. The assessees has contended that reopening of assessment u/s 147 in assessee’s case is change of opinion as the assessment has been Page | 4 LT.A. No.1079/Del/2016 completed earlier and same was accepted by the AO is wrong as during the course

Sh. Kapil Taneja, Jaipur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

based on suspicion, gossip, rumour or conjuncture. • Reasons referred must disclose the process of reasoning by which he holds `reasons to believe' and change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction to reassess. • There must be nexus between material and belief. • The reasons referred must show application of mind

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 959/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

notice dated 28 March 2013 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen assessment for A.Y. 2008-09 is based on mere change of opinion. However, according to Mr. Chhotaray, learned Counsel for the revenue the aforesaid issue now raised has not been considered earlier as the same ... would therefore, follow that the reopening of the assessment by impugned notice dated 28 March 2013 is merely on the basis of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer from that held earlier during the course of assessment proceeding leading to the order dated 12 October 2010. This change

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 958/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 957/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 956/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)