← 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

Himasagar Krishna Muthappagari, Tirupati vs. ITO., Ward-2(3), Tirupati

ITA 687/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri M. Uday Teja, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

revised the Assessment Order U/s 263, on the Assessment Order passed by NFAC on 22/03/2022, for Re-adjudication, which is highly arbitrary and change of opinion. 3. The revision of assessment without any fresh/new evidence showing escapement of income for tax, is totally wrong and it is merely change

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

assesse, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. Therefore, in these circumstances, the reasons in support of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and therefore would be completely without jurisdiction in the present facts. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 27 March 2019 is quashed and set aside ... Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur • Appellant’s Argument: The appellant cited this case to argue that reopening based on a mere change of opinion is invalid. • Revenue's Counter: o The appellant has misunderstood the principle laid down in Marico Ltd.. This case pertains to reopening

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

assesse, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. Therefore, in these circumstances, the reasons in support of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and therefore would be completely without jurisdiction in the present facts. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 27 March 2019 is quashed and set aside ... Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur • Appellant’s Argument: The appellant cited this case to argue that reopening based on a mere change of opinion is invalid. • Revenue's Counter: o The appellant has misunderstood the principle laid down in Marico Ltd.. This case pertains to reopening

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 873/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

assesse, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. Therefore, in these circumstances, the reasons in support of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and therefore would be completely without jurisdiction in the present facts. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 27 March 2019 is quashed and set aside ... assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. Therefore, in these circumstances, the reasons in support of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and therefore would be completely without jurisdiction in the present facts. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 27 March 2019 is quashed and set aside

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

assesse, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. Therefore, in these circumstances, the reasons in support of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and therefore would be completely without jurisdiction in the present facts. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 27 March 2019 is quashed and set aside ... Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur • Appellant’s Argument: The appellant cited this case to argue that reopening based on a mere change of opinion is invalid. • Revenue's Counter: - The appellant has misunderstood the principle laid down in Marico Ltd.. This case pertains to reopening

Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 692/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 48

with huge delay. It was submitted by Ld. DR that it is not the case of simple delay but a case of change of opinion, wherein the assessee thoughtfully decided not to file appeal against the impugned order & only when the consequential order was passed against him he came before

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Prop. M/S S.D. Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT-31(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3412/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ashsh A. Thakurdesai-CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

subject assessment year was completed under section 143(3) rws 147 and order dated 23.3.2015 has been passed. As per the apex court change of opinion does not amount to reasons to believe that the income for the subject assessment year is escaped assessment. Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Prop

Kailash Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power ... review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain preconditions and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7 Pune, Pune vs. Kolte Patil Integrated Townships Limited, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2023/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

case that there was no fresh tangible material was brought on record to reopen the case. As per the appellant it was merely change of opinion. This Ground is valid as there was no fresh material were brought on record by the AO to claim that the income has escaped ... reassessment orders were already before the AO at the time of original assessment. Hence, it is a clear-cut case of change of opinion. Hence this ground is allowed. 6.2. In Ground No.2 the appellant challenged the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act dated 25.07.2022 by claiming that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7 Pune, Pune vs. Kolte Patil Integrated Townships Limited, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2011/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

case that there was no fresh tangible material was brought on record to reopen the case. As per the appellant it was merely change of opinion. This Ground is valid as there was no fresh material were brought on record by the AO to claim that the income has escaped ... reassessment orders were already before the AO at the time of original assessment. Hence, it is a clear-cut case of change of opinion. Hence this ground is allowed. 6.2. In Ground No.2 the appellant challenged the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act dated 25.07.2022 by claiming that

DCIT, Delhi vs. Personiv Contact Centers India Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2860/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2860/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Smt. Suchita Goyal, Pcit-15, Plot No.32, First Floor, Road No.43, Vs. Room No.1702, E-3 Block, Ashoka Park, Extension, S.P. Shivaji Park, Civic Centre, Minto Road, West Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aafpg5320G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 270A(9)

interest of Revenue. The Ld. AR concluded his arguments by saying that while on the one hand the impugned order represented a mere change of opinion where on the same set of facts the Ld. PCIT had taken an adverse view in a matter which was sought

Heaven Associate, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 1694/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 Heaven Associate Ito, Ward-2 C/O. Akshat Heaven Vs Gandhinagar. Opp: Sahjanand City Kudsasan Gandhinagar 382 421. Pan : Aagfh 8119 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Prashant S. Pandit, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/03/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

learned AO has erred both on facts and in law by initiating re- assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, on account of change of opinion as during the original assessment proceedings detailed verification of WIP and advance payment of land is done by the then Ld. AO and duly ... accepted by him. Hence, initiation of reassessment proceedings on issue, which was part of the original assessment, is shows change of opinion of the Ld. AO, not allowable in the Act. 5. The learned AO has erred both on fact and in law by passing the assessment order

Manoj Tantia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5944/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5944/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Baani Landbase Pvt Ltd., Dcit, Corporate One, Ground Floor, Vs. Circle-4(2), Plot No.5, District Center, Jasola, Central Revenue Building, Delhi. I.P. Estate, Delhi. Pan No.Aadcb0237E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 292B

dated 26.04.2021 do not constitute mistake apparent from record, for the reason that the same issue was examined during assessment proceedings and constitutes change of opinion; (iv) That the addition made by the Ld. AO is not pursuant to mistake apparent from record particularly as Ld. AO had issued Notice

Shalini Jagwayan, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 987/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

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

Samir Navin Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5421/MUM/2024[2012-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2012-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Omkareshwar Chidarasamir Navin Shah Vs Income-Tax Officer, Circle 19(3) Shreeji Arcade, Shreeji Matru Mandir, Mumbai Chambers, Tata Road No.1 & 2 Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 Pan : Aazps9084M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shriv.P. Kothari Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,(Sr Dr)

For Appellant: ShriV.P. KothariFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,(SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

March. 2015 which was also considered by CIT(A) 52, Mumbai allowing part relief Therefore the appellant pray that this being merely a change of opinion and there is no new information which has not been considered in the original assessment proceedings. 3. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter ... proceedings under Sections 147/143(3), the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases was added. This, the Ld. AR argued, amounts to a complete change of opinion, which is not permissible in reassessment proceedings. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who upheld

ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. R.P.K. Gems and Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1206/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR, (Thru” V.H.) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@
Section 145(3)Section 68

other than the discrepancy for which the asseseee- appellant had made disclosure in PMGKY was found it is thus clearly a case of change of opinion by the new incumbent it is a settled principle of law that change of opinion cannot be a ground to make addition

The Gate of Hope Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO (Exemptions) Ward-2, Chennai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. T.V.Muthu AbiramiFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 80G

assessee to contend that notwithst for the assessee to contend that notwithstanding that the argument of anding that the argument of "change of opinion" is not available to him, he would challenge the is not available to him, he would challenge the is not available to him, he would challenge

The Gate of Hope Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO(E), Ward-2, Chennai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1372/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. T.V.Muthu AbiramiFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 80G

assessee to contend that notwithst for the assessee to contend that notwithstanding that the argument of anding that the argument of "change of opinion" is not available to him, he would challenge the is not available to him, he would challenge the is not available to him, he would challenge

Rahul Jabarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. Assistant. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 3525/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanrahul Jabarmal Jain Vs. Acit 19(3) 1204/B 12 Floor, Pratiksha Tower, R. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, S. Nimkar Marg, Mumbai Central, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 008 Pan: Aempj8236K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37

Income Tax Act, 1961 by the ld. Assessing Officer to reopen the already concluded assessment earlier u/s.143(3) of the Act merely on change of opinion and borrowed satisfaction. In view of the same appellant prays that reassessment proceeding initiated to reopen the concluded assessment u/s.143(3) by issue ... argued on behalf of the assessee that AO has reopened the already concluded assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act merely on change of opinion and on borrowed satisfaction. It is therefore submitted that issuance of impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 16.03.15 and the consequent reassessment order

Navbharat Potteries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above

ITA 2700/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

assessee has assailed that the reopening of assessment is bad in law alleging that the assessment has been reopened merely on change of opinion and no new fact or material is available with the AO at the time of reopening. Secondly, the additions of Rs.40,57,200/- as deemed rental ... argued by Ld. AR that the reopening of the assessment for taxing the deemed rent of vacant property is simply the change of opinion and no new tangible material was available with the AO because the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act without any additions