← 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

Kumar Ramesh Sahu, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Rajkot, Gujarat

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

ITA 336/RJT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 54Section 68

nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore, there being no assessment under s. 143(1)(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise." 12. Despite such difference in the scheme between a return which is accepted under ... such words, failing which s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen the assessments on the basis of mere change of opinion. On that basis, the apex Court concluded that even in the case of assessment which is sought to be reopened within a period of four

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1470/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2006-07] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Circle-7(1), Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2007-08] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Circle-22(2), Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2008-09] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Add.Cit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Special Range-8, Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2025

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was merely on the basis of change of opinion on the same set of facts which were existing and considered at the time of original assessment concluded under section ... issue of notice on 07.03.2013. He thus, prayed that the subsequent proceedings deserve to be hold bad in law and merely change of opinion. He further submits that from the perusal of approval memo supplied by the Department vide letter dated 1.01.2014, it could be seen that the approval granted

Gujarat Metal Cast Industries Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee lacks merit and is

ITA 551/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.551/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gujarat Metal Cast Industries Private Limited Village : Garadhiya Jarod Samlaya Road Vadodara – 391 520 (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 8433 G Ther Pr.Cit, Vadodara-1, Vadodara-390 007 V/S. अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit"], Dated 29.02.2024, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018–19, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dated 12.04.2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (Assessing Officer) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

computation were submitted, and therefore, the view taken by the AO was a plausible view. The revision proceedings were thus a mere change of opinion and not sustainable under law. 7. The learned Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, supported the revisionary order passed by the PCIT and submitted

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Ambattur Constructions Private Limited, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 288/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.288/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ito M/S. Ambattur Constructions Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Ward-1(1) 86E-2, Industrial Estate, Vs. Chennai. Ambattur, Chennai-600 058. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-7390-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.47/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.288/Chny/2024) (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Ambattur Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Ito (Merged With Ambattur Infra India Pvt. Ltd.) बनाम/ Corporate Ward-1(1), 86E-2, Industrial Estate, Vs. Chennai. Ambattur, Chennai-600 058. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-7390-N (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Smt. D. Babitha (Jcit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. D. Babitha (JCIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

erred in not considering the merits of the case and held the reopening itself to be bad as the same was due to change in opinion of the AO. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), while discussing the applicability of Sec 28(ii) to the income which has escaped assessment, erred ... same set of material as available during assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). This being the case, reopening would be nothing but mere change of opinion on existing material which is impermissible as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (187 Taxman