← 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

Jaguar Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 113/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar
Section 147Section 263

should be added to the total income of appellant vis-à-vis the addition of 6% made by the AO, merely based on change of opinion and reference to alternative judicial decision on distinguished set of facts confirming higher percentage of bogus purchases as addition to the total income

Reeta Rana, Saharanpur vs. DCIT-3, Sahranpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4672/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee to furnish full and 9 Reeta Rana v. DCIT A.Y. 2010-11 true particulars, that would only amount to a change of opinion not permissible in law. 20. However, the further observations of the Supreme Court in A.L.A. Firm (supra) broadly support the view taken by the Full Bench ... assessment. In such a case if the assessment is reopened in respect of a matter covered by the disclosure, it would amount to change of opinion. I do not in the circumstances consider it necessary to answer the broad question as to what are all the circumstances under which section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Jindal Pipes Ltd., Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3924/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

forward any new material facts to warrant such a disallowance. This clearly shows that the disallowance was made merely on account of a change of opinion, which is contrary to the Doctrine of Principle of Consistency as upheld in various judicial pronouncements. Thus the grounds raised this issue need

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Jindal Pipes Ltd., Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3895/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

forward any new material facts to warrant such a disallowance. This clearly shows that the disallowance was made merely on account of a change of opinion, which is contrary to the Doctrine of Principle of Consistency as upheld in various judicial pronouncements. Thus the grounds raised this issue need

Rajeev Behl, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2030/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 56

same is based on the reasons which are vague, without bringing any fresh material or evidence, and done on the basis of change of opinion, which amounts to review of order, not permissible under the law. 4. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Additions ... years without proving any failure on the part of the assessee to furnish full and true particulars, that would only amount to a change of opinion not permissible in law. 20. However, the further observations of the Supreme Court in A.L.A. Firm (supra) broadly support the view taken

ITO (E), Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6245/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

vide question 2009. This proves that the reasons on which belief was created by the AO is nothing but merely a change of opinion on the basis of material available on record which cannot empower the Assessing Officer to issue the notice of reopening under section 148 beyond the period ... assessment year 2007-08. After the change in the incumbent of the office these reasons were formulated that is nothing but amounts to change of opinion. It is noteworthy that the AO has nowhere observed that the assessee had not disclosed at the original assessment stage all the facts involved

Balubhai Kikabhai Patel, Valsad vs. Principal Commisioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.461/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Balubhhai Kikabhai Patel Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Nahuli, Karmbele, Umbergon, Income-Tax, Valsad, Room No. Vs. Surat-396 105 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Arcade, Shanti Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akqpp 2563 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

taken one of the permissible views on consideration of the facts of the case, therefore, the action of Ld.PCIT would amount to change of opinion on the same issue, which is not permissible. He further submitted that the assessment order was challenged before the CIT(A) and it was dismissed

Aashiyana Infrastructure Development Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3033/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanaashiyana Infrastructure Development Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (2), Private Limited, Delhi. Plot No.830, Near Asian Hospital, Sector 21A, Faridabad – 121 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aafca2236A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 28.05.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 24.04.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2012-13 On 28.09.2012 Declaring Income Of Rs.31,22,410/- Which Was Revised On 21.09.2013 At An Income Of Rs.22,16,310/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as the reopening in the instant case is only on account of change of opinion which is based on reappreciation of facts and material already on record. 6. That the no tic under section 148 of the Act is issued only

Neha Goel, Faridabad vs. PCIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 2624/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Neha Goel, Vs. Pcit, H. No. 585 Sector 15 Faridabad. Faridabad 121007. Pan No.Ahcpg6493Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 263

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

Raja Bashumiya Maniyar, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

ITA 455/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.455/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Raja Bashumiya Maniyar, Mandir Galli, Azad Chowk, Latur - 413512. Maharashtra. Pan: Boipm3875C Appellant/ Assessee V The Income Tax Officer- S 1, Latur. Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Virtual Hearing Date Of Hearing 13/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement | 27/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2010-11, Dated 27.03.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 30.12.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54F

even though the original assessment was completed U/Sec. 143(3) of the Act dated 12.03.2013 and therefore, it is clearly on account of change of opinion. c. The assessment order passed is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 3 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Sapphire Foods India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5399/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe / Asavari Kadam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292BSection 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viib)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant submits that the entire reopening has been based on a change of opinion inasmuch as the transaction of investment in the shares of Sapphire Hospitality and Recreation Private Limited (“SHRPL”) a specific query was raised vide notice dated 11th ... course of original assessment, yet reopening the assessment on the same issue i.e. investment in shares of SHRPL, would amount to a change of opinion in as much as there has been an application of mind by the Ld. AO at the time of passing the original assessment order under

Dlf Home Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 263

applied his mind and reaches to the conclusion therefore, the scope of Ld. PCIT u/s 263 for making further enquiries is nothing but change of opinion which is not permissible u/s 263 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs Sriji Prints

Balithal Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Tonk vs. Rjn-W-(107)(5), Tonk

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1306/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalbalithal Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Balithal Uniara Tonk, 304024 Pan No.: Aabab4614R ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Hemang Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234FSection 250Section 80P

inference which he should draw from the primary facts. If an ITO 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 assessment. The grounds or reasons which lead to the formation ... that all documentary evidence including books of account as well as statements were submitted by the assessee and therefore it is nothing but change of opinion which is not permissible under the Act. [Para 16] It is viewed that there was no failure to disclose any material fact necessary

O.K. Auto Components Pvt Ltd, Haryana vs. DCIT Circle-1, Haryana

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee stand allowed

ITA 5358/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S O.K. Auto Components Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, (P) Ltd., Haryana A-131, Sgm Nagar, Faridabad Haryana – 121001 (Pan: Aaac05770E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 68

both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the reassessment in this case has arisen due to change of opinion by the AO. He submitted that reopening upon change of opinion is not permissible in the eyes of law. He further submitted that more ... /142(1) and order sheet entries recorded during the 143(3) proceedings. For above narrated reasons, it is not a case of change of opinion by the AO. In view of all these facts, I have reason to believe that amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- has escaped assessment

Aksh Optifibre Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle - 2, Alwar

In the result, all the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Akul Agarwal, C.A. (thr. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 234ASection 250

erred in law as well as on facts in issuing notice u/s 148 on account of mere change of opinion as the assessment of the amalgamated company had already been completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant prays that the re-assessment order passed ... r.w.s.143(3) be quashed on account of proceedings being Initiated on mere change of opinion. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the appellant

Nina Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1878/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

No.1876/Del/2023 AY2016-17 Sangita Kshetry &Oths Vs ACIT Circle – Int. Tax. 2 (1)(2) New Delhi entire proceedings are a clear case of 'change of opinion' which is not permitted in law. 5. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no reassessment proceedings ... void ab initio The ld AR challenged the re-opening primarily on the following grounds- a. Reassessment is merely based on 'Change of Opinion' b. Approval under Section 151 is mechanical in law. c. Reassessment is in violation of Circular/Instruction dated 04.03.2021 as modified

Hersh Vardhan Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1877/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

No.1876/Del/2023 AY2016-17 Sangita Kshetry &Oths Vs ACIT Circle – Int. Tax. 2 (1)(2) New Delhi entire proceedings are a clear case of 'change of opinion' which is not permitted in law. 5. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no reassessment proceedings ... void ab initio The ld AR challenged the re-opening primarily on the following grounds- a. Reassessment is merely based on 'Change of Opinion' b. Approval under Section 151 is mechanical in law. c. Reassessment is in violation of Circular/Instruction dated 04.03.2021 as modified

Sangita Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1876/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

No.1876/Del/2023 AY2016-17 Sangita Kshetry &Oths Vs ACIT Circle – Int. Tax. 2 (1)(2) New Delhi entire proceedings are a clear case of 'change of opinion' which is not permitted in law. 5. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no reassessment proceedings ... void ab initio The ld AR challenged the re-opening primarily on the following grounds- a. Reassessment is merely based on 'Change of Opinion' b. Approval under Section 151 is mechanical in law. c. Reassessment is in violation of Circular/Instruction dated 04.03.2021 as modified

Assisstant Commisioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Estra Enterprises Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1653/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Mr. S.Senthil Kumaran, CITFor Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 45(2)Section 53A

examine this issue or formed any opinion. 4. The Ld CIT(A)'s quashing of the Assessment on the basis of change of opinion is incorrect when there is no opinion formed by any authority in the first place, any change of opinion cannot be said to exist or arise ... change of law, no material has come on record and no Information has been received. Assessee has stated that this is change of opinion by the AO. In support of view, assessee has given various case studies in its favour. These include judgement of jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court (Madras

DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Manish Uppal, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3061/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

Assessing Officer in the said proceedings and therefore, re- opening of the assessment u/s 147 vide notice dated 30.03.2019 was nothing but the change of opinion of the Assessing Officer. AO did not independently verified/examined the transactions reported to be accommodation entry by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and proceeded solely ... Officer to form his belief. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the proceedings were initiated, on the basis of borrowed satisfaction or change of opinion is not justified. 9.2 Moreover, the proceeding u/s 153A of the Act are restricted to the verification and use of incriminating material found