← 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

S.P. Singla Construction Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 514/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153Section 153A

Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case, the impugned notice under Section 147/148 would obviously be on the basis of a mere change of opinion by the income- tax authorities, which would not be valid as held by the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern News- paper Society ... then it will make no difference since even under the original Section 147 notice for reassessment could not be given on the mere change of opinion as held in numerous cases of the Supreme Court, some of which have been mentioned above. Since the Tribunal in the appeal relating

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

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

failure on part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts; (b) Impugned reassessment proceedings have been initiated on mere 'change of opinion'; (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without ... assessee. On this ground alone, the reassessment proceedings is invalid and bad in law, Re (b): Initiation of reassessment proceedings on mere change of opinion invalid In the present case, undisputedly no new material information came to the possession of the assessing officer subsequent to the completion of the original

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

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

failure on part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts; (b) Impugned reassessment proceedings have been initiated on mere 'change of opinion'; (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without ... assessee. On this ground alone, the reassessment proceedings is invalid and bad in law, Re (b): Initiation of reassessment proceedings on mere change of opinion invalid In the present case, undisputedly no new material information came to the possession of the assessing officer subsequent to the completion of the original

Shahnaj, Near Bherudanji Well vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Income Tax Office

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

should draw from the primary facts. If the assessing authority draws an inference, which appears to him, subsequently, to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference will not justify initiation of action for reopening of assessment. The power to reopen assessment proceedings would only

ACIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Orbit Financial Capital, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5812/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the L4CIT(A) has erred in holding that there was change of opinion, when the AO in his order had clearly escaped assessment as per requirement of the law then existing and the Ld. CIT (A) has mistakenly ... considered this as change of opinion, while in fact, it was a new material on record which was not available earlier. Reliance is placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs ITO (1993), wherein it has been held that

Navjyoti Farming Private Limited, Belapur vs. ITO, Ward -3, Panvel

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

ITA 1020/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

made in their hands. Therefore, the reopening of assessment on the basis of information obtained from the Investigation Wing is nothing but a change of opinion. 10. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Projects Development ... escaped assessment, since issue was subject of consideration while passing assessment order u/s 143(3), reopening of assessment being merely on basis of change of opinion, was liable to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that similar view on account of invalidity of reopening of assessment on account

Dalu Vasu Hiranandani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) - 2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1788/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Ruparel , AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(3)Section 24

relating to “Amenities” only based on the lease agreement provided to Ld. AO at the time of original assessment. Hence, it is clearly “Change of Opinion” as no new material came into possession of Department after the completion of original assessment. (b) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Pink City Jewel House Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur

ITA 598/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Saurav Harsh, Adv.&
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144oSection 14ASection 263Section 69

given by the assessee, the Id. PCIT, in our view, has wrongly exercised his revision jurisdiction on the issue which is nothing but change of opinion, that too, at the instance of audit party. In this case, even the AO did not admit to the audit objections rather requested

Siddharth Pandarinath Bhadale, Pune vs. ITO, Pne-W-(58)(91), Pune

Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1465/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 55ASection 56(2)(x)

facts and evidence that were already presented and evaluated by the AO during the original assessment proceedings. This amounts to a mere change of opinion and not an identification of any error or omission in the original assessment order. Addition made on this ground and upheld

Shree Shyam Buildstructure Private Limited, Sikar vs. ITO Ward -1, Sikar

Appeals are allowed

ITA 818/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Poonia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 263

examine the issue raised in the assessment proceeding; thatthe notice itself demonstrates the issue was raised by the ld. PCIT was nothing but change of opinion , and as such directions issued to make inquiry afresh is not permissible as per provision of section 263 of the Act. In support ... Jaipur-2 is of the opinion that the same can be treated as income in the year than it is a case of change of opinion. B. Regarding Rs. 15,000/-:- (i). It is not a case of no enquiry or non-examination or non verification, as 3 notices

Shree Shyam Buildstructure Private Limited, Sikar vs. ITO Ward -1, Sikar

Appeals are allowed

ITA 815/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Poonia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 263

examine the issue raised in the assessment proceeding; thatthe notice itself demonstrates the issue was raised by the ld. PCIT was nothing but change of opinion , and as such directions issued to make inquiry afresh is not permissible as per provision of section 263 of the Act. In support ... Jaipur-2 is of the opinion that the same can be treated as income in the year than it is a case of change of opinion. B. Regarding Rs. 15,000/-:- (i). It is not a case of no enquiry or non-examination or non verification, as 3 notices

M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1333/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area So Bidadi Acit Vs. Ramanagar Ltu, Circle-1 Bengaluru 562 109 Banalore Pan No : Aaact5415B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Kumutha D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Kumutha D., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250

erred in confirming the action of the AO in issuing notice under section 148 and making reassessment a. On mere 'change of opinion' and without any 'tangible material'. The reassessment made and the reassessment order on a mere 'change of opinion' and without any 'tangible material ... depreciation. Thus, forming an opinion on the depreciation claim. Subsequently, reopening the assessment on the same issue constitutes a review and hence a 'change of opinion', which is not permitted. • It has been held that non-rejection of explanation in the assessment order would amount to assessing officer accepting

DCIT Circle- 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hrel Real Estate Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue as well as In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2837/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Jain

quashed. b. Further, the re b. Further, the re-opening proceedings, being on the basis of a on the basis of a mere change of opinion on the part of the learned AO are not mere change of opinion on the part of the learned AO are not mere change ... after 4 years on same set of facts tantamount to change the reopening after 4 years on same set of facts tantamount to change of opinion on the part of the AO. he part of the AO. 5.8. The contentions of the appellant are not tenable for the reason that

DCIT Circle- 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hrel Real Estate Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue as well as In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2825/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Jain

quashed. b. Further, the re b. Further, the re-opening proceedings, being on the basis of a on the basis of a mere change of opinion on the part of the learned AO are not mere change of opinion on the part of the learned AO are not mere change ... after 4 years on same set of facts tantamount to change the reopening after 4 years on same set of facts tantamount to change of opinion on the part of the AO. he part of the AO. 5.8. The contentions of the appellant are not tenable for the reason that

DCIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgarte vs. Hrel Real Estate Ltd, Hincon House, Vikhroli West

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue as well as In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1531/MUM/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Jain

quashed. b. Further, the re b. Further, the re-opening proceedings, being on the basis of a on the basis of a mere change of opinion on the part of the learned AO are not mere change of opinion on the part of the learned AO are not mere change ... after 4 years on same set of facts tantamount to change the reopening after 4 years on same set of facts tantamount to change of opinion on the part of the AO. he part of the AO. 5.8. The contentions of the appellant are not tenable for the reason that

Vairavan Muthuraman, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Karaikudi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2328/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2328/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vairavan Muthuraman, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 45, First Main Road, Shenoy Income Tax, Nagar (West), Chennai. Circle, 1, Karaikudi. [Pan:Abapm0217G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Samantha Mullamudi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate Submits That Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Give Any Finding On The Legal Issue Of Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 37

lorry hire charges and TDS on lorry hire charges were examined in the scrutiny proceedings and hence reconsidering the same tantamount to change of opinion. It was further submitted that no reasonable opportunity was afforded by the ld. CIT(A) and prayed that the assessee may be granted one more ... assessee has raised ground No. 1 to 5 in objecting to reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act alleging ‘change of opinion’, but, however, the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the legal issue raised by 3 I.T.A. No.2328/Chny/24 the assessee. Further we note that there

Jasmine Buildmart (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-27, New Delhi

ITA 1624/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

where the amounts added in the impugned assessment order were duly considered and therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on change of opinion is bad in law as it is based on the same set of facts and amounts to a change of opinion. It must ... 22/03/2016. Thus, the onus of the revenue has not been discharged and the assessment order passed on surmises and change of opinion must be quashed. 6.The impugned assessment order is bad in law as the same has been passed without confronting the material relied upon by the AO therein

Jasmine Buildmart (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-27, New Delhi

ITA 1623/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

where the amounts added in the impugned assessment order were duly considered and therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on change of opinion is bad in law as it is based on the same set of facts and amounts to a change of opinion. It must ... 22/03/2016. Thus, the onus of the revenue has not been discharged and the assessment order passed on surmises and change of opinion must be quashed. 6.The impugned assessment order is bad in law as the same has been passed without confronting the material relied upon by the AO therein

Jasmine Buildmart (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Cirle-27, New Delhi

ITA 1610/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

where the amounts added in the impugned assessment order were duly considered and therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on change of opinion is bad in law as it is based on the same set of facts and amounts to a change of opinion. It must ... 22/03/2016. Thus, the onus of the revenue has not been discharged and the assessment order passed on surmises and change of opinion must be quashed. 6.The impugned assessment order is bad in law as the same has been passed without confronting the material relied upon by the AO therein

Ethix Healthcare, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, both on the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 147 and on merits of the case, the order of the AO as well as the ld CIT(A) is hereby set-aside and matter is decided in favour of the assessee

ITA 501/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri VivekVardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80Section 80I

while framing the original assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. It was submitted that it is clearly a case of change of opinion which is not permissible for invocation of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and in support reliance was placed on the decision ... already been formed by his predecessor and where the AO now seeks to review the said decision, it is a clear case of change of opinion which is not permissible as per the settled legal position as so laid down by the Courts from time to time