← 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

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Coastal Construction Ltd., Vadodara

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

erred in quashing the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer stating that it is merely on change of opinion subsequent to original assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act?" 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether ... that the Assessing Officer was in possession of tangible material while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, which cannot be construed to be change of opinion? 3. At the outset itself, it was stated that all three appeals have come up before us in identical background of facts; that

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Coastal Construction Ltd., Vadodara

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 480/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

erred in quashing the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer stating that it is merely on change of opinion subsequent to original assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act?" 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether ... that the Assessing Officer was in possession of tangible material while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, which cannot be construed to be change of opinion? 3. At the outset itself, it was stated that all three appeals have come up before us in identical background of facts; that

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Gujarat Coastal Construction Ltd., Vadodara

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 479/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

erred in quashing the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer stating that it is merely on change of opinion subsequent to original assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act?" 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether ... that the Assessing Officer was in possession of tangible material while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, which cannot be construed to be change of opinion? 3. At the outset itself, it was stated that all three appeals have come up before us in identical background of facts; that

Imk Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer -Ward 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4202/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishnakumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

thus no scrutiny assessment was carried out, therefore, the impugned reassessment proceedings cannot be questioned on the ground of “change of opinion” by the AO. However, non-selection of the case for scrutiny does not in any manner belittle/reduce the significance and meaning of the term “reason to believe”, which

ACIT 32 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Shubham Dynamic Real Estae Developers LLP, Mumbai

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4476/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 43C

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in stating that reopening of assessment is mere a change of opinion and is not justified despite of the provisions of section 43CA inserted by Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f.01.04.2014 clearly applicable in the case and reassessment ... assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act and the initiation of re-assessment proceeding on the same issue is nothing but change of opinion on the part of the AO. The ld. AR accordingly argued that even on that count the initiation of re-assessment proceedings in assessee

Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited (Formerly Known As Eurofins Advinus Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1114/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The learned assessing officer has erred in reopening assessment under section 147 on mere change of opinion. which is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2.8. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, notice under section ... assessment proceedings the ld. AO has applied his mind on the facts of the issue and examine the same in detail, there is change of opinion now for reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment which is not valid. He referred to the various notices and reply furnished during

M/S. Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited(Formerly Know As Eurofins Advinus Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1113/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The learned assessing officer has erred in reopening assessment under section 147 on mere change of opinion. which is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2.8. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, notice under section ... assessment proceedings the ld. AO has applied his mind on the facts of the issue and examine the same in detail, there is change of opinion now for reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment which is not valid. He referred to the various notices and reply furnished during

Dayal Cotspin Limited, Akola vs. ACIT, Akola Circle, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 68

cancelled. 2. Notice issued u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 is bad in law in view of same having been issued on mere change of opinion and in absence of any tangible material on record to derive satisfaction of escapement of income. 3. No notice ... income. Reliance on Lakhmani Mewaldas reported at 103 ITR 437(SC). (P- 21 to 31) (30( [Vol. – II] D) Reasons recorded are mere change of opinion. No new tangible material has comes on record. Notice issued u/s 148 is not in accordance with law. Reliance on Kelvinator of India

Rakesh Saxena, Bharatpur vs. The PCIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 823/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 17(2)Section 263Section 40

despite there being complete application of mind by the AO on the subjected issues and it was nothing but a case of change of opinion, based on which, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 is not permissible. The impugned order dt. 22.02.2024 therefore, lacks valid jurisdiction

Golden Vats Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1534/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1534/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri N.S. Phanidharan, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 37

first proviso to section 147 of the Act. The Ld. AR has also argued that this is a case of merely change of opinion and reopening is not sustainable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India ... also argued that all the expenditure were already submitted during earlier scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, so reopening is change of opinion which is not permissible as per decision of Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator india Ltd., supra. 8. The assessment in this case

Ebrahim Essa Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-9(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1188/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ebrahim Essa Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ito-9(2)(4), 115 Dathawala Wstate, Sv Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jogeshwari West, 400 102. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 4720 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, DRFor Respondent: Mr. Prateek Jain
Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act which is 148 of the Act which is merely due to change of opinion and therefore the re merely due to change of opinion and therefore the re-opening is bad in opening ... assessment for examining the same transaction of examining the same transaction of the loan amounted to change of the loan amounted to change of opinion, which is not permitted in law. Secondly, the reassessment opinion, which is not permitted in law. Secondly, the reassessment opinion, which is not permitted

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Jayant Agro Organics Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4292/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 35

proceedings are initiated without jurisdiction and the reassessment Initiated was mere change of opinion? 02. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 4. The solitary grievance of the Revenue is that ... caution is that before interfering with the proposed reopening of the assessment on the ground that the same is based only on a change in opinion, the Court ought to verify whether the assessment earlier concluded has either expressly or by necessary implication expressed an opinion on a matter which

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Jayant Agro Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4291/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 35

proceedings are initiated without jurisdiction and the reassessment Initiated was mere change of opinion? 02. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 4. The solitary grievance of the Revenue is that ... caution is that before interfering with the proposed reopening of the assessment on the ground that the same is based only on a change in opinion, the Court ought to verify whether the assessment earlier concluded has either expressly or by necessary implication expressed an opinion on a matter which

Sunny Trexim Private Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 644/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 92C

opinion that conditions precedent for reopening of the assessment beyond four years are not satisfied. The reassessment was on change of opinion. There are no allegation of suppression of material fact. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the High Court in setting aside the reopening notice under

Sunny Trexim Privat Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 643/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 92C

opinion that conditions precedent for reopening of the assessment beyond four years are not satisfied. The reassessment was on change of opinion. There are no allegation of suppression of material fact. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the High Court in setting aside the reopening notice under

Ramanathan Adaikalavan, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu vs. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 557/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.557/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2014-15 Ramanathan Adaikalavan, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.80, Ansari Street, Ram Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641009. Coimbatore [Pan: Aanpa6846P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55A

provisions of section 147 / 148 are bad in law. The Ld. Counsel had contended that reassessment of any proceedings on the basis of change of opinion is not permissible in law. It has been submitted that as per extant statutory provisions covering the subject, reassessment u/s 148 is only permissible ... Apex Court in its decision of Kelvinator of India is that no action u/s 148 can be taken on the basis of change of opinion. Income Tax Authorities cannot revisit their decisions merely by having a change of mind. The latter is permissible only in existence of certain facts

Bhargavi Marketers, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward 6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 732/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhargavi Marketers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aapfb3209D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Venkata Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri V. Venkata Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 270ASection 40Section 40a

under : 1) The Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessments u/s 147 of I.T.Act, as the same was on the basis of change of opinion of the same issue which has been verified during the course of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of IT Act dated ... erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer though the reopening of the assessment was based on change of opinion by the Assessing Officer in the case of duly supported by the decision of the honourable Apex court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India

Adala Bhanu Rekha, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 583/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adala Bhanu Rekha Vs. Dcit Hyderabad Circle-6(1) [Pan : Accpa8679F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Bg Reddy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri BG Reddy, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

Appellant at the time of assessment proceedings itself and in the absence of any fresh/ new information, reopening of the assessment by mere changing the opinion is bad in law. 4. Without prejudice to the grounds 2 and 3 above: a) The learned CIT (Appeals) grossly erred ... assessee had challenged reopening of the assessment and argued that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on mere ‘change of opinion’, without there being any fresh tangible material which suggest escapement of income. The assessee had also challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of deduction

R R Paints Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1112/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

before the AO (page 29 & 41 of paper book). Accordingly the ld AR submitted that the reason for reopening is based on mere change of opinion and that the AO has formed the belief based only on existing material. The ld AR accordingly argued that the initiation of reassessment proceedings ... that were necessary for computation of income but this is a case wherein the assessment is sought to be reopened on account of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer about the manner of computation of the deduction under section 57 of the Act. In a similar case where

Titan Company Limited, Hosur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Ltu 2 (Ic), Chennai

In the result the appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1742/CHNY/2024[2011- 12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1742/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2011-12 Titan Company Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.3, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri, Ltu-2, Tamil Nadu-635126 Chennai [Pan: Aaact5131A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Abhay Kumar, C.A अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Komali Krishna, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024

For Appellant: Ms.Komali Krishna, CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 80Section 80C(2)(a)Section 80I

debts was enquired and analyzed by the Ld. AO during the original proceedings and therefore the reopening was a case of mere change of opinion which is not permissible in law. On the second issue Ld. CIT(A) held that :- 3 -: reopening was a valid action ... record of the AO and hence the same was bad in law. It was contended that the reopening alluded a clear case of change of opinion. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India