“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

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 124/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

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 123/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 122/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

Sureshkumar Mavjibhai Bhingaradia, Individual, Bharuch vs. The DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 355/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Sureshkumar Mavjibhai Bhingaradia, Vs. The Acit, Plot No.3441/B, Near Pci Chowkdi, Circle – 2(1)(1), Gidc Estate, Bharuch - 393002 Vadodara "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acqpb6047G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2025

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 14ASection 250

facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in reopening the case of appellant merely on basis of change of opinion without appreciating the fact that the appellant had disclosed full and complete facts at the time of original assessment and all ITA No.355/SRT/2024/AY.2012-13 Sureshkumar Mavjibhai Bhingaradia these details

Saraswati Mukund Education Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Thane, Mumbai

ITA 3316/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar

Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

Assessment Order dated 30/12/2017. It was vehemently contended that the reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of Appellant only on account of change of opinion and in absence of any tangible material to form the belief that income had escaped assessment. It was further submitted that there ... Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the Assessing Officer did not form any opinion on the issue under consideration and therefore, the question of change of opinion did not arise. Learned Departmental Representative further submitted that the order of the regular Assessment under Section 143(3) was completely silent

Gnanamorrthy Suresh, Tirupattur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

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

ITA 2623/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2623/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gnanamoorthy Suresh,, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 210, Phase 1, Tnhb, Vellore, Ward 2, Tirupattur, Tirupattur H.O. Vellore. Tamil Nadu 635 601. [Pan:Bpcps7016G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 8 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 68

simply held that the gifts received from family members supported with bank statements, confirmation letters, etc. were not acceptable as it shows the change of opinion from the assessee. We note that the Assessing Officer did not give any consideration like examining the details as furnished by the assessee ... Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) called for remand report and the Assessing Officer without considering the same, proceeded to hold the change of opinion, in our opinion, should have examined the new evidences furnished by the assessee, which was not done so. Hence, we proceed to decide the issue

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer vs. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 1285/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer, C. R. Building – 305 001. ..... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Shailesh Mantri, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254Section 43B

reply. Hence, there can’t be any allegation of escapement of income on assessee; rather it falls in the category of “Change of Opinion”. 6 Moreover, the issues under consideration are already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the coordinate bench in ITA No. 272/JPR/2018 ... power to reassess. The power of reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of ''change of opinion'' is removed, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place and the concept of ''change of opinion'' should be treated

Srinivas Shah Radraraju, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.957/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Srinivas Shah Rudraraju Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Afcpr1979L] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-2, Guntur, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2014-15 On 31.03.2015, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.53,50,976/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason ‘Suspicious Long Term Capital Gain On Shares’ & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer, Noticed That The 2 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 68

learned Counsel for the assessee that the reopening of the assessment was not based on any fresh tangible material but merely on change of opinion is devoid of any merit and unsustainable. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 10 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju of Raymond Woollen Mills

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3164/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade, CIT D/R

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

already applied his mind during the assessment proceedings. This action of AO u/s. 147 of the Act will tantamount to change of opinion which is not permissible on the given set of facts. Grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.” I.T.A. No. 3164/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 36/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3161/Mum/2023

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3161/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade, CIT D/R

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3157/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade, CIT D/R

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Marico Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5574/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri B R Baskaran, Am Dcit, Range 9(2) M/S. Marico Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R. No. 218, Rang Sharda, K. C. Marg, 2Nd Floor, M. K. Road, Vs. Bandra Reclamation, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 050

For Appellant: Shri Milin BakhaiFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H Pande

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

inaccurate, untrue or false but the AO only doubted the correctness of the quantum of claim. It was a case of mere change of opinion based on same particulars of expenditure filed with the return or in course of the assessment proceedings. The appellant did not file inaccurate particulars

Satelite Trade Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 912/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

which, we are afraid, Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re- open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to re- open. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power ... power to re- assess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre- condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat

Vishnubhai Chelabhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT, Surat-1, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 421/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Vishnubhai Chelabhai Patel, Pr.C.I.T.,Surat-1, F-19, Divya Jyoti Apartment, Surat. Vs. Samul Dairy Road, Alkapuri, Surat-395008 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adipp 4007 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 50C

once the Assessing Officer has taken a legally sustainable view, the revision on the same issue by ld. Pr.CIT is nothing but a change of opinion. Thus, we find that the revision order passed by ld. Pr.CIT does not fulfill the requirement of twin condition of Section

Tijaria Polypipes Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cirlce 4, Jaipur

ITA 616/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

company with number of concerns which had made accommodation entries and they were not genuine transactions. As we perceive, it is neither a change of opinion nor does it convey a particular interpretation of a specific provision which was done in a particular manner in the original assessment and sought ... speaking order disposing of the objection of the petitioner. It is further submitted that, the reopening of the assessment was not inspired from change of opinion. 26. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Wide powers vested for reopening the assessment under section 148 read

Same Deutz Fahr Italia Spa, Italy vs. Assistant Commissioner, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 937/CHNY/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250o

937/Chny/2024 2.10 The CIT(A)further failed to appreciate that mere change of opinion cannot per se be the reason for re-opening under section 147 and erred in holding the action of re-opening the assessment by the Assessing Officer as valid. Without prejudice to the foregoing grounds ... ITAT, the assessee took various grounds. On reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the plea of the assessee is that mere change of opinion cannot per-se be the reason for reopening u/s 147 since there was no fresh material on record which merits such reopening. The assessee

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Macmillan Education India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2036/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 2036/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 66/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Macmillan Education India Corporate Ward -4(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. No.21, Patullos Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan:Aafcm-5564-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Mr. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit Department By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 147

assessment is not justified as there is no new material or new information which would warrant a re-opening of the assessment. Merely change in opinion on part of the Ld. AO e. The Ld. AO erred in not appreciating the fact that re-opening of assessment is a mere ... change of opinion in the instant case. The AO erred in not admitting the facts that all the material facts and information including submission on subject issue under dispute was available and discussed with him during the course of the original assessment proceedings. f. The Ld. AO has erred

Income Tax Officer, Kautaliya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Rajnish Bharti HUF, Darukhana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4378/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. C.V. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

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

issuing the impugned notice under s. 148. He had applied his mind for issuing the notice. It was not a case of mere change of opinion. iii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Multi screen Media (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India ... below: "16. The last judgment, in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra), the question for consideration was whether the concept of change of opinion stood obliterated with effect from April 1, 1989 after substitution of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Direct Tax Laws

Income Tax Officer 41(3)(3), Bkc vs. Rajnish Bharti HUF, Darukhana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4377/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. C.V. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

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

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL