“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

Kkr India Advisors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA 3599/Mum/2025

ITA 3599/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

proceeding has to be considered as a plausible view and the view taken by the Ld. PCIT, howsoever plausible, is nothing but a change of opinion for which jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be assumed. In light of the above discussion, it is clear that a mere difference

Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF), Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1000/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 68Section 69A

which are initiatedu/s 147 by way of reconsideration of the material already available at the time of original assessment proceedings, would amount to change of opinion. In this regard, while passing the impugned order, Learned CIT(A) relied on decisions in ACIT vs Infinity.com Financial Securities Ltd. [2022] 145taxmann.com ... initiated u/s 147 by way of reconsideration of the material already available at the time of original assessment proceedings, would amount to change of opinion. Thus, it is humbly submitted that it is said in the stock market, that 'PRICE IS GOD'. There is no reasonable justification for the price

Mahesh Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68(6), Delhi

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

therefore contended that on the very same facts, the reopening could not be done and the reassessment proceedings was a case of change of opinion in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 187 taxman

Dolphin Promoters & Builders, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Raipur

ITA 440/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur05 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 440/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

while recording such reasons for escaped income of Rs. 1,27,58,465 on 16-3-21; it is merely on 'change of opinion on the same material facts available on record which is not permissible in the eyes of law; reopening is invalid and is liable to be quashed

Jay Prabhudas Vithalani, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee (ITA No

ITA 75/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjunlal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 75/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Jay Prabhudas Vithlani 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Gujarat-361008 Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway Gujarat-361001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv0266A (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.74/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2021-22) Khushaboo Jaykumar Vithlani 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Gujarat-361008 Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Lal Wadi Main Road, Kaushal Nagar, Gujarat - 361110 स्थायी लेखासं . / जी आइआरसं . / Pan/Gir.: Aefpv6723A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 19/06/2025 : 05/08/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) – 2021-22, Are Directed Against The Separate Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [(In Short "Ld. Pr.Cit”] U/S. 263 Of The Act, Both Orders Dated 24.01.2025. 2. Since, These Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessee For Same

Section 263

Investment P. Ltd. vs DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom) (193), it was held that, "No new material brought on records-Reassessment on change of opinion of officer not valid." The copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 175 to 177. ii. The judgement is passed by High ... held that, "Reopening of assessment on the same ground in the absence of any tangible material was based on mere change of opinion and therefore is not sustainable." Hence, based on the above-mentioned judicial pronouncements, in the absence of any specific evidence, the revisionary proceedings-initiated

Khushboo Jaykumar Vithlani, Jamnagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee (ITA No

ITA 74/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjunlal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 75/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Jay Prabhudasvithlani Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Income Tax, Gujarat – 361008 Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway Gujarat – 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv0266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 263

Coral India Finance & Housing Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 2496/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri V K Ginde, ARFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)(a)

fulfilled. We, thus sustain the ground. 10. In the case under consideration, the proposed revision is sought to be done merely on change of opinion disagreeing with the opinion of the AO that the expenditure is not deductible under sec 80G of the Act. Further, it is a settled position

Hester Bioscience Limited, Mehsana vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1084/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 201Section 263Section 40Section 80G

time of assessment proceedings and hence same is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and that it amounts to change of opinion which is not permitted. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at or before the hearing

Holy Spirit Educational Society Convent of Holy Spirit, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer(Exemptions) Ward-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 965/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri A. Shankar, Sr

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(i)Section 144B(1)(iii)Section 147Section 148

section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act is bad in law as the entire re-assessment proceedings are on account of a mere change of opinion which is impermissible in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the notice issued ... correct. The assessee also raised a ground that the reopening is not based on any fresh material and therefore on mere change of opinion, the assessment cannot be reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) not accepted the contention of the assessee and observed that the explanation given

Shree Siddhi Infrabuild Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1021/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1021/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Siddhi Infrabuild Private Limited D-1001, Ganesh Meridian Opp. Kargil Petrol Pump Nr. Gujarat High Court Ahmedabad – 380 060 बनाम / V/S.\The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 Ambawadi Ahmedabad – 380 014 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aalcs 4509 A (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Shrunjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”) Dated 15/03/2024 Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") For The

For Appellant: Ms.Shrunjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

plausible view and that the Ld.PCIT cannot substitute his own view with that of the AO. That, it was a mere case of change of opinion and hence, the assessment order under the circumstances cannot be said to be erroneous. She has vehemently argued that computation of the disallowance u/s.14A ... Ld.PCIT would not be justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, as it will be a case of change of opinion. However, in this case, since the issue is not debatable and the view taken by the AO is apparently erroneous and, therefore, the provisions

Worldquant Research (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Principle CIT-6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3549/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Hardik Nirmal &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

proceedings has to be considered as a plausible view and the view taken by the ld. PCIT, howsoever plausible, is nothing but a change of opinion for which jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be assumed. Considering the facts of the case in totality, we set aside the order

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bp Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6645/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Jay Bhansali, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 147r

Assessing Officer erred in reopening the case of the assessee merely on the basis of change of opinion which is not permissible. Consequently, the reassessment order is liable to be quashed; 4. The CIT(A)/ Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the order dated 29.04.2022 under section 148A

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bp Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6644/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Jay Bhansali, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 147r

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bp Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6643/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Jay Bhansali, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 147r

Tin Tar Retail Corp, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 6483/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

Accounting of Sales Return: Since the Assessee is retailer, trading in garments, the plausible few reasons for sales return are as under: i. Change of opinion (natural light conditions v. store lighting, opinion of family members) ii. Fitting is not correct (wrong size, typically when purchased by customer for another

Tin Tar Retail Corp, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6480/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

Tin Tar Retail Corp, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 6479/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

Tin Tar Retail Corp, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 6478/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Capital Limited (Successor to Tata Cleantech Capital Limited), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3456/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80Section 80I

manner that it would require due diligence by the AO to extract these information. For aforementioned reasons, it was not a case of change of opinion by the AО. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance ... issue of legality of the reopening proceeding and reassessment order passed thereafter by holding that there is change of opinion by the Ld. Assessing Officer from what he had adopted in the original proceedings u/s. 143(3) and the assessment so completed under the said section. On the merits

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

ITA 1252/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 115JSection 135Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

claim of deduction under chapter VIA during the course of assessment and therefore it cannot be re-examined u/s 263 on mere change of opinion is not tenable. It can be seen from the records that the AO had called for certain details vide notice