← 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, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4320/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

been upheld by ld. CIT(A) to be bad in law, since it tantamount to ld. Assessing Officer resorting to change of opinion for the purpose of making reassessment u/s. 147. On the merits of the case, derivative loss has been held to be a business loss as against view ... fully satisfied with the reply and claim of the assessee. It is only after completion of the assessment that ld. Assessing Officer changed his opinion and issued reopening notice without having any fresh material in hand. Accordingly, it was submitted that since there has been no fresh material in hand

ACIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4319/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

been upheld by ld. CIT(A) to be bad in law, since it tantamount to ld. Assessing Officer resorting to change of opinion for the purpose of making reassessment u/s. 147. On the merits of the case, derivative loss has been held to be a business loss as against view ... fully satisfied with the reply and claim of the assessee. It is only after completion of the assessment that ld. Assessing Officer changed his opinion and issued reopening notice without having any fresh material in hand. Accordingly, it was submitted that since there has been no fresh material in hand

ACIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4318/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

been upheld by ld. CIT(A) to be bad in law, since it tantamount to ld. Assessing Officer resorting to change of opinion for the purpose of making reassessment u/s. 147. On the merits of the case, derivative loss has been held to be a business loss as against view ... fully satisfied with the reply and claim of the assessee. It is only after completion of the assessment that ld. Assessing Officer changed his opinion and issued reopening notice without having any fresh material in hand. Accordingly, it was submitted that since there has been no fresh material in hand

ACIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4090/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari andFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and
Section 1

been upheld by ld. CIT(A) to be bad in law, since it tantamount to ld. Assessing Officer resorting to change of opinion for the purpose of making reassessment u/s. 147. On the merits of the case, derivative loss has been held to be a business loss as against view ... fully satisfied with the reply and claim of the assessee. It is only after completion of the assessment that ld. Assessing Officer changed his opinion and issued reopening notice without having any fresh material in hand. Accordingly, it was submitted that since there has been no fresh material in hand

Overseas Infrastructure Alliance(India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4064/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari andFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and
Section 1

been upheld by ld. CIT(A) to be bad in law, since it tantamount to ld. Assessing Officer resorting to change of opinion for the purpose of making reassessment u/s. 147. On the merits of the case, derivative loss has been held to be a business loss as against view ... fully satisfied with the reply and claim of the assessee. It is only after completion of the assessment that ld. Assessing Officer changed his opinion and issued reopening notice without having any fresh material in hand. Accordingly, it was submitted that since there has been no fresh material in hand

Overseas Infrastructure Alliance(India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4045/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

been upheld by ld. CIT(A) to be bad in law, since it tantamount to ld. Assessing Officer resorting to change of opinion for the purpose of making reassessment u/s. 147. On the merits of the case, derivative loss has been held to be a business loss as against view ... fully satisfied with the reply and claim of the assessee. It is only after completion of the assessment that ld. Assessing Officer changed his opinion and issued reopening notice without having any fresh material in hand. Accordingly, it was submitted that since there has been no fresh material in hand

Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4044/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

been upheld by ld. CIT(A) to be bad in law, since it tantamount to ld. Assessing Officer resorting to change of opinion for the purpose of making reassessment u/s. 147. On the merits of the case, derivative loss has been held to be a business loss as against view ... fully satisfied with the reply and claim of the assessee. It is only after completion of the assessment that ld. Assessing Officer changed his opinion and issued reopening notice without having any fresh material in hand. Accordingly, it was submitted that since there has been no fresh material in hand

Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4043/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

been upheld by ld. CIT(A) to be bad in law, since it tantamount to ld. Assessing Officer resorting to change of opinion for the purpose of making reassessment u/s. 147. On the merits of the case, derivative loss has been held to be a business loss as against view ... fully satisfied with the reply and claim of the assessee. It is only after completion of the assessment that ld. Assessing Officer changed his opinion and issued reopening notice without having any fresh material in hand. Accordingly, it was submitted that since there has been no fresh material in hand

ACIT CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3998/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

been upheld by ld. CIT(A) to be bad in law, since it tantamount to ld. Assessing Officer resorting to change of opinion for the purpose of making reassessment u/s. 147. On the merits of the case, derivative loss has been held to be a business loss as against view ... fully satisfied with the reply and claim of the assessee. It is only after completion of the assessment that ld. Assessing Officer changed his opinion and issued reopening notice without having any fresh material in hand. Accordingly, it was submitted that since there has been no fresh material in hand

ACIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3995/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

been upheld by ld. CIT(A) to be bad in law, since it tantamount to ld. Assessing Officer resorting to change of opinion for the purpose of making reassessment u/s. 147. On the merits of the case, derivative loss has been held to be a business loss as against view ... fully satisfied with the reply and claim of the assessee. It is only after completion of the assessment that ld. Assessing Officer changed his opinion and issued reopening notice without having any fresh material in hand. Accordingly, it was submitted that since there has been no fresh material in hand

Ravisum Creative Promotions Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Agro Investment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 8 (11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1616/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarravisun Creative Promotions Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Formerly Known As Ravisun Agro 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Investments Pvt. Ltd. New Marine Lines, Vs. 305, Surat Sadan, Surat Street, Churchgate, Masjit Bunder, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400049 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr 9224M Appellant By : Ms. Radha Halbe Respondent By : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

For Appellant: Ms. Radha HalbeFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 43B

pleading that the issue on which assessment was reopened was examined in course of original assessment proceeding hence, reopening is on a mere change of opinion. However, the objection raised by the assessee did not find favour with the Assessing Officer. Being of the view that the investment made ... examined in the original assessment proceeding, the same issue cannot be revisited in a proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act on a mere change of opinion. She submitted, the reopening is purely based on audit objection wherein, audit party had proposed the subject disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D. Thus

Smt. Manda Thete, Nagpur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/JAB/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)

accepted by the AO during the course of proceedings for the assessment year 2015-16 order us 143 3 dated 30.11.2017 leading to change of opinion. 3.That the CIT Appeals faceless erred in re-assessing the unsecured loans of Rs. 3140045 as un explained unsecured loans for the alleged failure

Deeya Agrotech Private Limited, Burhanpur vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 492/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideeya Agrotech Private Ito Burhanpur बनाम/ Limited, Vs. 203, Bahadarpur Road, Burhanpur 450331, Madhya Pradesh, Indore (Pan:Aadcd9603J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pankaj Mogra, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 40A(3)

erred in issuance of the notice u/s 148 of the Act even after four years merely on the basis of change of opinion and to review the assessment order already passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The same requires to be quashed. 5. That on the facts

Jethabhai Gokulbhai Gol, Banaskatha vs. ITO, Ward 1, Palanpur, Banaskantha

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2668/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69

assessment, the assessee contended that there was no fresh tangible material, that the reassessment was based merely on suspicion and amounted to a change of opinion, and that the capital introduced in the partnership firm had already been examined in the firm’s assessment. The CIT(Appeals), after examining

Ramesh Purshottam Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6577/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 94(7)Section 94(8)

reassessment and on the merits of the proposed addition. The assessee contended that the reopening of the assessment was based merely on a change of opinion, inasmuch as the issue in question had already been examined during the original assessment proceedings completed under section ... that reopening was based on the same facts examined during the original assessment under section 143(3) dated 26.12.2017 and therefore amounted to change of opinion. The assessee denied any fictitious short term capital loss of Rs. 44,24,42,395/- and argued that the final addition, based on revocation

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Seabird Exploration Fz-Llc, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 134/DDN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

erred in law by deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by treating it as change of opinion. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act ignoring

M/S. Thdc India Limited, Rishikesh vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/DDN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] M/S. Thdc India Ltd. Vs Pcit Ganga Bhawan, Aaykar Bhawan, Pragatipuram, Bye Pass 13 A, Subhash Road, Road, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaact7905Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca & Ms. Pallavi, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2022 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun [“Ld. Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Joint Venture Company Of Government Of India & Government Of Uttar Pradesh & Engaged In The Business Of Generation & Supply Of Hydro- Electric As Well As Wind Power & Also Engaged In Construction Of Hydro Power Plants. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 6,84,04,420/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 948,40,76,282/-. The Book Profits Was Shown At Inr 7,84,96,09,382/- & Mat Of Inr 1,67,52,32,236/- Was Paid. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Considering The Submissions Made, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 4,63,78,80,698/- By Making Disallowance Out Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80-Ia Of The Act To The Extent Of Inr 211,15,54,378/- & Further Making Addition Of Inr 245,79,21,900/- On Account Of Late Payment Surcharge On Outstanding Debtors For The Period Of 10 Months Holding The Same As Taxable On Accrual Basis & No Deduction U/S 80Ia Was Allowed On Such Addition.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

taken a possible view, the assessment order cannot be said to have been passed without inadequate inquiries or investigation. It is merely change of opinion which do not lead to the belief that the assessment order passed is erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the Revenue

Sunil Kumar Baheti, Surat vs. PCIT (Central), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 579/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

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

that the issue was subject to due enquiry and application of mind by the Assessing Officer, and revision u/s 263 amounts to mere change of opinion. As regards house property income, the Ld. AR submitted that the properties were either used for business Sunil Kumar Baheti Vs. PCIT Asst. Year

Skm Steel Limited (Skm Alloys Private Limited), Mumbai vs. CIT(A) 49 Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8130/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethskm Steel Ltd.(Skm Alloys Vs. Cit(A) 49 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.), Pratishtha Bhawan Mumbai-4000020. 2Nd Floor Shri Gajanan Darshan Building 30 C.P Tank Road, Mumbai- 400004. Pan/Gir No: Aadcs7801F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

such in the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for the same year and for the preceding year, thus resulting into change of opinion. (3) On the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and accepting the treatment of lease income as income

Spice of Life Hotels and Estates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7704/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

taxinann.com 24 (Bombay HC) Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. vs. UOI [2024] 159 taxmann.com 51 (Bombay HC) Proposition 3: Reopening due to mere change of opinion is bad-in-law and invalid CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ITO v. TechSpan India ... Cylinder Ltd. vs. UOI [2024] 159 taxmann.com 51 (Bom. HC). 8. The ld. AR further contended that the reopening was mere due to change of opinion, as all the material which was referred to by the ld. AO in the reasons for reopening were already on record during the original