“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

Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad -1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 226/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.226/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 249 New Cloth Market Ahmedabad-1 V/S. O/S. Raipur Gate Ahmedabad – 380 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adbpa 4462 G (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57

documents submitted by the assessee and took a permissible view. The PCIT’s attempt to revisit the same issue constitutes a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible under Section 263 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in case of Hero Cycles

Ishoo Narang, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2022 & S.A. No.1/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaupn9082B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/07/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Al The Mandatory Preconditions Before Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Were Duly Complied & Met With By The A.O.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT (DR)

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 147Section 68

assessment u/s 147 of the Act, on the ground that the reopening of the assessment is merely on the basis of change of opinion without there being any fresh tangible material which suggests escapement of income. The appellant has also challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards ... 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 of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer

Anju Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3158/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalanju Chirania, Vs. Ito, Ward –4(1)(3), 301, Sona Chambers, Room No. 637, 507/509, Jss Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chira Bazar, Marine Lines, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Afcpc9073Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

hence the reasons subsequently recorded after 14 months by his successor Assessing Officer without referring to proceedings concluded u/s 133(6), amount to change of opinion. c. There is no discussion in the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax on the remand report submitted by the current Assessing Officer

Export Import Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl. Jt. Dy. Asst. CIT Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2917/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Export Import Bank Of India Pcit, Mumbai-3, Mumbai World Trade Centre Complex, Vs Centre One Building, Floor 21, Colaba S.O., Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaace 2769 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

reasons recorded by the Ld. AO tor issuance of notice u /s. 148 of the Act was: (a) merely based on change of opinion / absence of new tangible material; and/or (b) based on audit objection which represents borrowed satisfaction and non-application of mind by the Ld. AO; and/or

Rita Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO-It-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 916/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 147Section 151Section 250

appreciating the fact that the invoking of provisions u/s 147 of the Act for this assessment year is only change of opinion by the Ld. A.O as there is no new tangible material found that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements ... appreciating the fact that the invoking of provisions u/s 147 of the Act for this assessment year is only change of opinion by the Ld. A.O as there is no new tangible material found that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements

Rita Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO-It-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 915/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 147Section 151Section 250

Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

ITA 681/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 253(5)

fact remains that there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts • Reopening because of Change of opinion • Reopening merely on the basis of Audit Objection with regards to interpretation of law • Reopening on the basis of Borrowed Satisfaction 1. Assessee company ... satisfied that 2+2=4 only. 11. Hence, reopening the case of the assessee company is nothing but the case of change of opinion which is not allowed under the law. Reliance is placed on following judgments wherein it was held that reopening on the basis of change of opinion

ACIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Sml Isuzu Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 are based merely on the change of opinion whereas no finding had been mentioned in the original assessment order on the issue considered for issuance of notice u/s 148. 3. On the facts ... proceedings without jurisdiction and illegal. (b) No fresh / tangible material to reopen the closed assessment and proceedings initiated merely on the basis of change of opinion on existing facts. (c) Legal objections filed by the assessee not disposed off by a separate speaking order. 11. Regarding (a) (supra) with regard

ITO, Ward-1(1), Solapur vs. Ms. Kshirsagar Fabrics, Solapur

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

ITA 97/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

directed against the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) completing assessment u/s 147 based on a mere change of opinion. The brief fact of the case is that the appellant filed the return of Income for the Assessment year (AY) 2009-10 on 29.09.2009 declaring a total income ... failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The appellant submitted that it is a mere change of opinion, and AO had no reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. 5.4 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submission

Johar Hasan Zojwalla, Kalyan vs. ACIT, Circle 3, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 56(2)(i)

issue of the notice u/s 148 dt. 31.03.2016, not appreciating that such re-opening was on account of change of opinion in respect of same set of facts examined in the course of original assessment completed u/s 143(3) on 29.12.2011, which being not permissible by law, the re-opening ... during the scrutiny assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned reassessment has been made on account of a change of opinion and there is also no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 7. On the other

Big Boss Foods Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir. 1, Burdwan

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

ITA 398/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 40

hands of Revenue leading to the view that there was reason to believe that there was escapement of assessment, there was mere change of opinion and hence notice u/s 148 of the Act is liable to be quashed. 1.3. On the contrary, ld. D/R supported the impugned order

Satya Kinkar Roy, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-23(1).Hg, Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 865/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.865/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Satya Kinkar Roy……………….………………… ........................……Appellant C/O S. N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Ahapr7203H] Vs. Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly.................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.06.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Through His Grounds Of Appeal Has Agitated Against The Validity Of Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act As Well As The Validity Of The Impugned Addition Of Rs.48,76,881/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Failure Of The Assessee To Reconcile The Figures In Respect Of Amount Received As Incentives & Discounts. 3. Initially, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Basic Reason For

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

assessment was reopened. The impugned additions have been made only on the basis of reappreciation of records, which is nothing but a change of opinion. The ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd.’ reported