“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

Griffin Marine Travel Private Limited (Amalgamated With Instone India Private Limited), Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is allowed

ITA 4196/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Kale, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 210

There was no fresh tangible material for re-opening of the assessment which is based on a mere change of opinion on reappraisal of the same material already on record. (iii) The notice under section 147 and the order under section 147 have been passed in the name ... same cash basis (page 24 of Paper Book). Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted that the reason for reopening is merely based on change of opinion with regard to the information which is already part of records. Without prejudice to the above submissions, the ld. AR submitted that the notice under

Goyallmpex & Industries Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 10(3), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1458/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in upholding validity of reassessment proceedings, despite the same having been initiated on the basis of mere change of opinion, without any new tangible material/ information coming to the possession of the assessing officer subsequent to completion of assessment under section

Om Prakash Agrawal HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaiupr, Jaipur

ITA 967/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sarwan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

ITA No. 967/JPR/2024 Om Prakash Agrawal HUF vs. ITO आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, DCIT Circle, Aaykar Bhavan vs. Svc Co-Operative Bank Limited

ITA 691/MUM/2024[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

reopened the Assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) observed that this amounted to mere 'change of opinion and that all the details material for computing the deduction was already available on record and there was no apparent failure on the part ... case where this court examined the question as to whether the concept of “change of opinion” stands obliterated with effect from April 1, 1989, i.e., after substitution of section 147 of the Act by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. This court considered the changes made in section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1374/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Choughule

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)Section 80G

proceedings, the Assessee had made full and true disclosure of all material facts. The reassessment proceedings had been initiated merely on account of change of opinion. Therefore, the same should be quashed as being in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 147(1) of the Act. 10. Per contra ... gathered his reasons to believe from very same record as has been subject matter of completed assessment proceedings and the principle of mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for re-opening completed assessment would have no application where order of assessee does not address itself to the aspect

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bharat Broadband Network Limited, Kidwai Nagar East, Delhi

ITA 3259/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roydcit, Circle 4(2) Vs. Bharat Broadband Room No. 384, C.R. Network Limited, Building I.P. Estate, New 3Rd Floor, East Kidwai Delhi, Delhi – 110002 Nagar, Nbcc, Office Block 1, Kidwai Nagar East, South West, Delhi Delhi - 110023

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sujit Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 40A(2)(b)

that it would tantamount to non- disclosure of material facts necessary for making Assessment. For aforesaid reasons, it is not a case of change of opinion by the AO 7. In view of the above the amount of Rs.64,21,28,031/-has escaped assessment. Therefore, I have reason ... would tantamount to non-disclosure of material facts necessary for making assessment. In that view of the matter, it is a case of change of opinion by the AO. However, taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter we find that in the event, if, this particular fact

Sureshkumar Suvalal Jaiswal, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 548/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

Thus, invoking Section 263 itself is not justifiable as it is not the revisionary power which was invoked but it is a change of opinion on the part of the PCIT which is not permissible. The Ld. AR submitted that the PCIT erred in passing order under Section ... Section 147 assessment and, therefore, invocation of provisions of Section 263 of the Act on the very same issue will tantamount to change of opinion and the same is not permissible under Section 263 of the Act. The Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 4 of 4 contention

Padmavati Agrico (India) Pvt Ltd, Ajmer vs. ACIT Circle - 1, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 143Section 147

suspicion, gossip, rumour or conjuncture. (d) Reasons referred must disclose the process of reasoning by which he holds ‘reasons to believe’ and change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction to reassess. (e) There must be nexus between material and belief. (f) The reasons referred must show application of mind

Shri Shamlaji Aarogya Seva Trust, Godhra vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Surat at -Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 138/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.138/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Shamlaji Aarogya Seva Trust The Pr.Cit (Central) बनाम/ Kanelav Road Surat At Vadodara Dhahod Road V/S. Godhra – 389 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Surat [Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit"] Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Wherein The Pcit Held That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 16.11.2019, Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interests Of

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT, Vadodara (ITA No.47/Ahd/2020), where it was held that the observations made by the Ld.PCIT, and order passed by him is merely a change of opinion and does not sustain. 6. The Ld.Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue stated that the AO has not referred to any documents investigated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 819/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

assessee and held that the reassessment is invalid on the ground that the reasons recorded for reopening fall in the category of ‘change of opinion’. 9. The ld. DR Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT submits that the Assessing Officer rightly reopened the assessment, as having fresh material. The Hon’ble High ... also did not entertain the contention of the assessee that the Assessing Officer reopened the already completed 4 I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/24 assessment on change of opinion and drew our attention to the paper book containing 33 pages. The assessee failed to provide evidence in the original assessment proceedings

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 818/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

Deputy Commissioner (Exemptions), Chennai, Income Tax vs. Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, Chennai

ITA 611/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 611/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. Hindustan Institute Of Technology & Science, 40, Gst Road, St Thomas Mount, Chennai - 600 016. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaath-6508-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Shri R. Venkatesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 04.09.2024 Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi (Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059507197(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai For The

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 3(1)

Ld.CIT(A) erred in concluding that all the records were already present with AO and that this is a case of change of opinion. 2.4 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that asset received on division from HCE was never disclosed by the assessee during 143(3) proceeding and hence ... dropped and assessment annulled. It is also submitted that the impugned notice under section 148 was issued merely on account of change of opinion as no fresh tangible material unearthed based on which notice is issued. As there is no new material referred to in the reasons recorded as they

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. Unipro Techno Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Chandigarh

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 693/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri A.K. Sood, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80I

deduction under section 80IA(4). The Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that review of the order was only on account of change of opinion and could not be exercised under section 263 of the Act. In support of its contention that the issue had been examined

Pnr Builders and Developers, Mumbai - Maharashtra vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber

ITA 3745/MUM/2024[AY2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 69C

assessment proceedings and the assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) after due application Reopening under Section 148 is nothing but a change of opinion, liable to be quashed. 3.4. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO failed to appreciate that there was no failure on the part

Blue Dart Express Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1101/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

fresh evidence has been relied upon by your goodself in the aforesaid reasons for re-opening the assessment. Therefore, the same constitutes mere change of opinion as there has been nothing more than a fresh application of mind to the same set of facts. 2.22. Without prejudice to our above

H. Sherul & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 551/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vaidyalingan, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

additions made by the Id. AO where the reopening of the assessment was on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and merely a change in opinion. The Id. CIT(A) erred in affirming the order of the Id. AO which was based purely on suspicion, surmises and conjectures which is clear ... assessment order accepting revised return came to be passed. 36 We would agree with the submissions of Mr. Pardiwalla that if change of opinion concept is given a go by, that would result in giving arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessments. It would in effect

H. Sherul & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 550/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vaidyalingan, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Chandan Singh Contractor, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 348/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Chandan Singh Contractor, Cit(A) ( Nfac), E-88/33 Basant Kunj, Delhi Vs. Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaffc8954Q Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

assessee for advancing interest free loans to his friends and other persons. Prime facie it is manifest that it is a case of change of opinion as nothing new has come to the notice of the A.O after completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee challenged

Alka Commodities Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2983/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Maheshwari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

give rise to any taxable income, the AO could not have reopened the assessment of the current year, as the same results in change of opinion. Accordingly, the Ld AR submitted that that the impugned reopening of assessment is bad in law. 6. We heard the Ld.DR, who submitted that ... with regard to these two entries, the reopening of assessment for the AY. 2014-15 can only be categorized as on account of change of opinion. Before us, the revenue could not demonstrate that these two entries are new items and they are not connected with the items considered

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 946/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.775/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 034. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.946/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011. ) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

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 fulfillment 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