← 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

Ability Services Private Limited, Sakchi vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/RAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.20/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ability Services Pvt. Ltd…….....................…...........................……….……Appellant 232 Kumhar Para, New Baradwari Sakchi, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aacce1395H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 09, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 18.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Contract & Transportation & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.81,52,900/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Was Framed On A Total Assessed Income Of Rs.84,49,220/-. Subsequnetly, Proceedings U/S 148 Were Initiated Vide Notice Dated 30.03.2021 & Assessment Was Completed On 20.03.2022 Wherein The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Excess Depreciation Of Rs.36,64,657/- & Payment Of Epf/Esi Beyond The Due Date But Prior To Filing Of Return Of Rs.5,31,940/-

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Court as in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1, where it was held that mere change of opinion or vague assumption of the Assessing Officer is not a valid ground for reopening completed assessment, it must be based on failure

Grace Jayanthi Rani, Rep. by Jcd Prabhakar, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

ITA 523/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:523/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Grace Jayanthi Rani, The Income Tax Officer, Represented By J C D Prabhakar, Vs. Corporate Circle 1(1), No.1, 4Th Avenue, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. [Pan:Aeppc-1579-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T
Section 1Section 250Section 251Section 69A

ought to have appreciated that the reopening is barred by limitation. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there is no change of opinion and as such reassess is unsustainable in law. Without prejudice to the above technical grounds, the Appellant raises the following grounds on merits

Tremendous Mining and Minerals Pvt Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 157/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Tremendous Mining & Vs Dcit, Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3, Cabin No.-1, 1205, New Delhi. 89-Hemkunth Chamber, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019. Pan: Aacct8840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwini Kumar, Ca & Shri Ankur Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.01.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-23/10303/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 24.12.2019 Passed U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Central Circle- 3, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Ashwini Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

consequence except where the reopening is being challenged on the basis that it is a case of mere change of opinion. Thus, the additional ground as raised has no substance. The same is decided against the assessee. 6. Then, coming to main grounds involving issue on merits ... manner that it would require due diligence by the AO to extract this information, For aforestated reasons. it is not a case of change of opinion by the AO. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. In view

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Trilok Dewan, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 303/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Trilok Dewan, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 302/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

which he should draw from the primary facts. If an Income-tax Officer draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessments: See Income-tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Sarita Dewan, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 300/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

which he should draw from the primary facts. If an Income-tax Officer draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessments: See Income-tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Sarita Dewan, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 299/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

which he should draw from the primary facts. If an Income-tax Officer draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessments: See Income-tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Snehlata Agarwal, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 298/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

which he should draw from the primary facts. If an Income-tax Officer draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessments: See Income-tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Snehlata Agarwal, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 297/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

which he should draw from the primary facts. If an Income-tax Officer draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessments: See Income-tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Usha Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 296/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

which he should draw from the primary facts. If an Income-tax Officer draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessments: See Income-tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Usha Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 295/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

which he should draw from the primary facts. If an Income-tax Officer draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessments: See Income-tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Subhash Chandra Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 293/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

which he should draw from the primary facts. If an Income-tax Officer draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessments: See Income-tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Vipul Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 292/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

which he should draw from the primary facts. If an Income-tax Officer draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessments: See Income-tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Priya Dewan, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 289/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

which he should draw from the primary facts. If an Income-tax Officer draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessments: See Income-tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Priya Dewan, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 288/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

which he should draw from the primary facts. If an Income-tax Officer draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessments: See Income-tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal

Rajeev Kumar Sehgal, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. ITO-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri-2

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 30/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Rajeev Kumar Sehgal V. The Income Tax Officer 3(4) Punjab Colony Lakhimpur Kheri - 2 Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Asbps5131M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals NFAC failed to appreciate that re- opening of a concluded assessment tantamount to review or change of opinion, which is not permissible under the Act. 5. That the learned learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals NFAC has erred

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Cent. Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

grounds of appeal are as under:- “[1] Assessment order is bad in law and invalid, the same being based on change of opinion and having been passed without consideration of the objections/submissions filed disputing the validity of notice u/s.148 and reassessment proceedings pursuant thereto ... being itself bad in law and invalid since the same is reopened not only on the basis of BORROWED SATISFACTION but also CHANGE OF OPINION as well as general and vague material and information received from a third party and not case specific material/evidence found in case of the appellant

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kalpana Madhani Securities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 3846/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandcit-14(1)(1) M/S. Kalpana Madhani R. No. 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Securities Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 11/1102, Shanti Tower, Shanti Mumbai-400 020 Path, Near Garodia Nagar, Mumbai-400 077 Pan: Aabck2968H

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 73

Notice u/s 148 dated 28/07/2022 is bad in law. 3. The Ld Assessing Officer erred in reopening of Assessment second time "due to change of opinion without appreciating that assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15 was already completed on 29.03.2016 and thereafter the case

Sunil Kumar Choudhary HUF, Dabagardens vs. ACIT, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 470/RAN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi02 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.470/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sunil Kumar Choudhary Huf...................…...........................……….……Appellant 30-15-138/20 Binoy Aka Complex, Opp. Bsnl Office, Andra Pradesh-530020. [Pan: Aabhs6048Q] Vs. Acit……………………..........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar & R. R. Mittal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 2Nd , 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 07.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Huf & Engaged In The Business Of Wholesaler, Transporter, Lease Rent. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,72,850/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass Followed Notices Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act & Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) On 25.03.2015 With Assessed Income Of Rs.16,89,850/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. The Assessee Sought Reasons Recorded For Reopening, However The Assessing Officer Rejected Such Request Stating That The Assessee Failed To File Return In

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Court as in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1, where it was held that mere change of opinion or vague assumption of the Assessing Officer is not a valid ground for reopening completed assessment, it must be based on failure

Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari Bank Ltd., Amreli vs. The DCIT-ACIT-2(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 548/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.548/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari The Dcit/Acit-2(1) बनाम Bank Ltd. Rajkot. Bhojalram Bhavan Vs. Rajmahel Road Amreli 365 601. Pan : Aaata 2737 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M.Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M.Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

doubtful debts were furnished at the time of original assessment and therefore reopening the case on same set of facts amounts to change of opinion and not permissible. The assessee has not provided the correct and detailed working of deduction claimed towards bad and doubtful debts