“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

M/S Vardhman Polytex Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 542/CHANDI/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Aggarwal, CA (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(II)Section 35(1)(ii)

assessment. 3. That the CIT(A)-I was not justified in confirming the order of the AO which was based purely on change of opinion. 4. That in any case the confirmation of the order by CIT(A)-I is against the law and facts of the case. 5. That

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Speciality Papers Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5054/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma 0 Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 153CSection 250

section 148 of the Act is based on the same set of facts available during the course of original assessment which is purely change of opinion on the part of the AO which is not permissible under the law. (b) Notice under section 148 of the Act (deemed to have ... With regard to the contention that the AO has relied on the same material and the reopening is based on mere change of opinion, the ld. AR submitted that the AO has received the information from DDIT (Inv.) based on the search conducted in the case of Shri Sirish

Khanna Automobiles Rewa, Rewa vs. Income Tax Officer, Rewa

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

ITA 39/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Khanna Automobiles V. Income Tax Officer 01 M/S Khanna Automobile, Ward-1 Bus Stand, Rewa, Madhya Income Tax Office, Kothi Pradesh-486001. Compound, Behind Customer Forum, Rewa- 486001. Pan:Aahfk4140J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

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

without any basis as all the information was duly available before the AO during the original proceedings and the reopening is the change of opinion. 7. The order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 is bad in law as the reopening of assessment was without any new information

Kizhakethil Prasad, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Kochi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 148

appraisal of the same facts considered by the AO while completing the original assessment. The re-assessment being made on a change of opinion is not valid. iii. CIT(A)-NFAC failed to note that NFAC while completing the assessment had considered the day of approval and departure as stay ... jurisdiction by the AO u/s 148 of the Act. Arguing these grounds counsel for the assessee argued that it is a case of change of opinion because in the original assessment proceedings, the AO has specifically enquired into the issue and has taken a view and therefore, re-appreciation

Ram Ratan Hooda, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 45 (1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 982/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69

fresh tangible material which has come to the knowledge of the Ld. AO. The reassessment proceedings were thus initiated based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible in law. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO as the sanction/approval

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem vs. Pandyan Grama Bank, Salem

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2870/CHNY/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2870/Chny/2024 & Co No.06/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 2870/Chny/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Pandyan Grama Bank, Income Tax, Vs. Now Known As Tamil Nadu Grama Circle 1, Bank, Salem. No.6, Yercaud Road, Hasthampatty, Salem – 636 007. [Pan: Aahat-7854-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate & Shri. P. Gurusamy, I.T.P. Department By : Shri. Shivanand K Kalakeri, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. Shivanand K Kalakeri, C.I.T

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 80P

justifying the reopening. Therefore to reopen an assessment based on the return filed by the assessee will clearly be a case of change of opinion and consequently bad in law." 16. Moreover, the assessing officer while re-opening the assessment had failed to appreciate that for the very same issue

The Ruby Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central) - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3035/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) The Ruby Mills Limited Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 11Th Floor, Ruby House A, Vs (Central)-5, Aayakar Bhawan, J.K. Sawant Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai – 400028. [Pan No. Aaact0220G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68Section 80G

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred on facts and in law by invoking Section 263 of the Act solely due to change of opinion from that of the Ld. Assessing Officer. Such an instance does not empower the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income

M/S Shree Steel Cqastings Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Nagpur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 112/NAG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrym/S. Shree Steel Castings Dcit, Circle-1, Nagpur Pvt. Ltd., T/38/1, Midc, Vs. Hingna Road, Nagpur. Pan: Aaccs 4071 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani &For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250

during the original assessment proceedings. Thus, the additions under consideration made on the basis of reasons recorded, which are entirely based on the change of opinion, are not sustainable and thus the same are deleted. 8. Coming to the addition sustained to the tune of Rs. 82,932/- is concerned

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

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

ITA 290/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 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

Shashi Harikishan Goswami, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1860/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Shashi Harikishan Goswami Ito Ward 22(3)(1) C/O. Vishal International Piramal Chambers Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No. 307 Ground Floor, 45 Tagore Lalbaug, Parel Road, Santacruz West Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 054. Pan : Aafpg9278H Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri R.C. Modi & Ms

Section 147Section 148

facts and cases-law for the proposition that the reopening of assessment is invalid because the Ld. AO reopened the same based on change of opinion and no new facts have come to light and also there is full disclosure of facts at the time of original assessment itself. Hence

Das Offshore Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3890/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Das Offshore Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sagar Uday, Plot No. F-3, Tax, Circle 1(2), Agroli, Sector 29, Mumbai Behind Cidco Bhawan, Vs. Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai - 400614 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaacd5996K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ramesh Jain, Cas Revenue : Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055302006(1), Dated 22.08.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.11.2017 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ramesh Jain, CAsFor Respondent: Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147

issue which has already been dealt with in the course of regular assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act, tantamounting to change of opinion with no new tangible material brought on record. According to him, the reassessment proceedings and impugned reassessment order are bad in law, liable to be quashed ... recording the stated reasons to believe for initiating reopening proceedings u/s.147of the Act, it is nothing, but a mere change of opinion. It is a settled position in law that the change of opinion cannot be per-sea reason to reopen. There is conceptual difference between power to review

Heera Lal Kasara, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/JODH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessment year 2009-10 and now taking a different view on these guidelines is a case of change of opinion which is not permissible under section 147 of the Act. The ld. A/R submitted that the guidelines issued by INS has nothing to do with the income and financial statement

DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Kkalpana Industries India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 452/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate and Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45

made by the preceding AO in the order passed uls.143(3)/153A of the Act. Thus, the reopening notice issued on a mere change of opinion on the same set of facts was clearly not as per law. In fact there was not even an allegation of non-disclosure ... assumption of jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act on the same set of facts available before the preceding learned AO is a mere change of opinion which is not permissible u/s 147 of the Act. 4. 147 Order not as That on the facts of the case

First Advantage Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3291/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi/Ms. Sonakshi Jhunjhunwala, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. D/R

Section 115JSection 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80G

considered as a plausible view and the view taken by the ld. Pr. CIT, 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

Rama Shanker Pareek, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69CSection 80C

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

Avi Aggarwal, H.No. 171-R, Model Town, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Assessment Unit NFAC, Delhi, Jao ITO Ward6(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab

ITA 971/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

reasons' to believe and on incorrect facts. It was further argued that even there was no tangible material and it was merely a change of opinion. There was no nexus of the conclusion sought to be drawn and the information as received from the 'Investigation Wing'. He relied upon

Ashirwad Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle, Pune

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

ITA 190/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Raja B. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 2(15)

material facts had been duly considered at the time of assessment is applicable in this case; and (e) re-assessment would involve change of opinion, which is not permitted. The said objections raised by the assessee were rejected by the Ld. AO vide his order dated 18.02.2022. The assessee thereafter ... already done 3 ITA No.190/PUN/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 being a mistake apparent from the record. The same as resulted in a change of opinion of the Ld. AO. The appellant has also submitted that the Ld. AO has not disposed off the specific objections against re-opening

Rpg Life Sciences Limited, Worli Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Mumbai, Churchgate

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2769/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Krish Desai, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT, D/R

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

New Rampgreen Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 161/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) New Rampgreen Technologies Ito Ward 7(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 126 Centre Gd Ambedkar Marg Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Wadala So,Mumbai-400 031. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aadcv9341F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Nikunj Jain

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

already there before Ld. AO when the assessment was earlier completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Hence, it amount to change of opinion. 5. The Ld. AR of the appellant has argued before the ITAT that the even though the asset was put to use for part

Raghav Bahl, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Noida

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1835/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

Section 24Section 263Section 263(1)

original assessment proceeding and no adversities were observed in such regard. Therefore, order passed u/s 263 of the act is pure example of 'change of opinion', and thereby, said order deserves to be annulled being illegal and invalid. 5. That the Ld. Pr. CIT had erred in interfering with original ... deserves to be dropped. 5. Further, impugned invocation of provisions of section 263 of the act in the impugned matter would tantamount to change of opinion' being considering all relevant documentary evidences available on record, the then assessing officer had not drawn any adverse inference but without bringing on record