← 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

Sandee Impex, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-29(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1830/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

Income Tax Officer, Civil Lines, Raipur vs. Sandeep Jhabak, Raipur

ITA 418/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.418/Rpr/2024 Co No.16/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Sandeep Jhabak M/S. Allied Traders, Jhabak Bada, Near Tatyapara, Kamasipara (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adnpj2221L ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54B

Raipur Vs. Shri Sandeep Jhabak CO No.16/RPR/2024 (ii) the reopening of the completed assessment suffers from the vice of change of opinion without there being any new tangible material in possession justifying such reopening; (iii) the reopening of the completed assessment has been done without satisfying the jurisdictional requirement

Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2017/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora, H G Sharma
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

received from the Investigation Wing, Pune on the search and seizure proceedings in the Appellant's own matter which seems to be a change of opinion and there is no reason to believe for re-opening the concluded matters and further, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming ... plank of argument submitted that the re-assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act is invalid since the same is mere change of opinion and the same cannot be reopened without independent verification and application of mind to the information received. Referring to the original assessment order

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 1178/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

received from the Investigation Wing, Pune on the search and seizure proceedings in the Appellant's own matter which seems to be a change of opinion and there is no reason to believe for re-opening the concluded matters and further, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming ... plank of argument submitted that the re-assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act is invalid since the same is mere change of opinion and the same cannot be reopened without independent verification and application of mind to the information received. Referring to the original assessment order

Zenith Dyeintermediates Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1999/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 4(1)Section 40

discover by the AO and could not have been discovered with due diligence. For the above reasons, it is not a case of change of opinion. Therefore, I am satisfied that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment

Omprakash Daulatram Nogaja, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 17(2(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3996/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vanesh Kumar NadarFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (SR DR)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 37(1)

allowed by the Revenue in earlier assessment years. The ld.AR has also assailed the reopening by claiming that it is a case of change of opinion and was therefore, liable to be quashed. 6. We have carefully considered all the relevant facts of the case as borne from records

Build Tec Construction, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 1(1) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

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

ITA 4566/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151A

reassessment proceeding is bad in law as the reason to believe was not as per the law and it was mere a change of opinion which is not permissible in the eyes of law. 4. The issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction as the same

Ratnesh Kumar Jain, Shivpuri vs. Income Tax Officer Ashok Nagar, Gwalior

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

ITA 278/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144rSection 147Section 148Section 250

considering original assessment record while the case of the assessee was duly scrutinized originally u/s. 143(3) of the Act. It was a change of opinion as the entire material was available before the AO in original assessment proceedings. Thus, there was change of opinion vis a vis original assessment

Sunny Tarunkumar Doshi, Jetpur vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sunny Tarunkumar Doshi vs. ITO Page 4 of 8 assessment on the same issue amounts to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible under the law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India ... within four years unless there is tangible material to establish escapement of income. The Court categorically ruled that reopening based on a mere change of opinion is not valid. As the present case falls within four years of the original assessment and no tangible material has been brought to justify

Magestic Premises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-2, Thane

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

ITA 1540/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Pakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250Section 69ASection 69C

appeal that the reopening of assessment under section 147 by issuing of notice dated 27/03/2019 under section 148 is due to a change of opinion of the AO. Further, there is no material available on record to substantiate the plea of the assessee that the present case falls within

Nirmal Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

same no adverse inference has been drawn. Now, again doubting the cost of acquisition tantamount to revisit the accepted fact and is more change of opinion for which proceedings u/s 148 cannot be initiated which is settled proportion of law more particularly when the equity shares of MIDPOLY has been

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3514/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 115JSection 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 37(1)

learned AO erred in law and in facts by revising a considered view taken by the learned AO during original assessment i.e., change in opinion does not confer jurisdiction on the learned AO to reopen the completed assessment under section 147 of the Act. Further, the reassessment could ... I.T.A. No. 3514/Mum/2024 6 6.2. On perusal of the aforementioned facts, it is clear that the re- assessment proceedings, is nothing but mere change of opinion where action of the AO is to relook at the very same facts available at the time of original assessment proceedings. This is against

Ratna Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 132/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

expenditure. Therefore, the reopening of assessment on the very same issue based on subsequent information received from ADIT, Investigation, Kolkata, is a change of opinion. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported ... basis of the very same information in the guise of subsequent information received from ADIT (Investigation), Kolkata, is nothing but a ‘change of opinion’, which is not permissible under the law. Further, although the Assessing Officer refers to the investigation report received from the ADIT (Investigation), Kolkata, but there

Samtel India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 22(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7101/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Cit, Samtel India Limited, Circle-22(1), 501, Copia Corporate Vs. New Delhi. Suites, District Centre Jasola, New Delhi-110025 Pan-Aaacs0390N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri D.C. Garg, Ca Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi (“The Cit(A)” For Short) In Appeal No.32/13-14 Dated 27/01/2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi, Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case In Upholding Action Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening The Assessment Under Samtel India Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 37

were duly considered at the time of completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and thus reopening is nothing but mere change of opinion. 9. During the course of hearing ld. A/R of the assessee submits that the assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) wherein ... therefore, now based on the Samtel India Ltd. vs. ACIT same material making allegation that certain income has escaped assessment is a mere change of opinion which cannot per se reason to reopen the concluded assessment. For this reliance is placed on the following: - CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India

Jsw Energy (Utkal) Limited (Formerly Known As Ind Barath Energy Utkal Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 539/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

No.8/Hyd/2024 such material was brought on record by the Ld. AO, the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act is change of opinion on the part of the Ld. AO and therefore, it is bad in law. 4.1 The alternate argument of the assessee before ... verification was ITA Nos.36 & 539/Hyd/2024 7 C.O. No.8/Hyd/2024 made by the Ld. AO on that issue. Hence, no question of any change of opinion arises, when the same issue was not the subject matter of limited scrutiny u/s.143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the findings

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Jsw Energy (Utkal) Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 36/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

No.8/Hyd/2024 such material was brought on record by the Ld. AO, the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act is change of opinion on the part of the Ld. AO and therefore, it is bad in law. 4.1 The alternate argument of the assessee before ... verification was ITA Nos.36 & 539/Hyd/2024 7 C.O. No.8/Hyd/2024 made by the Ld. AO on that issue. Hence, no question of any change of opinion arises, when the same issue was not the subject matter of limited scrutiny u/s.143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the findings

Sockalingam (HUF), Madurai vs. ACIT, Cirrcle - 1, Madurai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1849/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1849/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Sockalingam (Huf), V. Income Tax, Plot No.423, Kk Nagar East, Circle -1, 9Th Street, Madurai – 625 020. Madurai. [Pan: Aaxhs-5962-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54F

order u/s.143(3) dated 12.02.2016, which cannot be a reason for issuance of notice under sec.148 and would only amount to change of opinion. MERITS: 7. The CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs.82,69,145/- to the Long Term Capital Gains returned by assessee ... With regard to the contention of assessee that the reopening :-7-: ITA. No:1849/Chny/2024 is bad in law, since it was a change of opinion on the same set of facts that were available before the officer while framing the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) held

DCIT(Central)-1, Raipur vs. Kalmesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 138/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

appeal before us: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening u/s.148/147 is invalid; it is merely on change of opinion as based on findings of survey conducted upon assessee u/s.133A on 15-3-16 which had been considered in original assessment made u/s.143 ... been made on such count; reopening of concluded assessment made u/s.143(3) dt.31-3-16 in absence of any fresh/new material, be treated merely on change of opinion on the same material facts, is not permissible in the eyes of law, is liable to be quashed; relied on Siemens Energy Industrial Turbo

DCIT(Central)-1, Raipur vs. Kalmesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 136/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

appeal before us: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening u/s.148/147 is invalid; it is merely on change of opinion as based on findings of survey conducted upon assessee u/s.133A on 15-3-16 which had been considered in original assessment made u/s.143 ... been made on such count; reopening of concluded assessment made u/s.143(3) dt.31-3-16 in absence of any fresh/new material, be treated merely on change of opinion on the same material facts, is not permissible in the eyes of law, is liable to be quashed; relied on Siemens Energy Industrial Turbo

DCIT(Central)-1, Raipur vs. Kalmesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 135/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

appeal before us: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening u/s.148/147 is invalid; it is merely on change of opinion as based on findings of survey conducted upon assessee u/s.133A on 15-3-16 which had been considered in original assessment made u/s.143 ... been made on such count; reopening of concluded assessment made u/s.143(3) dt.31-3-16 in absence of any fresh/new material, be treated merely on change of opinion on the same material facts, is not permissible in the eyes of law, is liable to be quashed; relied on Siemens Energy Industrial Turbo