← 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

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Chennai

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

ITA 775/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

Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Churu vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 725/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. R. P. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

tried to establish that the Assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous, but the action now initiated is just a change of opinion hence cannot be subject to the revision u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. She further observed that ld. AO has not applied

Sarita Gupta, Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 662/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

belief, based on new materials that any income had escaped assessment. A notice under sec. 148 may not be issued merely on change of opinion. Where the condition precedent for issuance of a notice is absent, the notice might be challenged by filing a writ petition under Art. 226. Reassessment ... particular income and pending said proceedings, initiating proceedings under s. 147 for taxing the same income, proceedings under s. 147 suffered from change of opinion, hence bad in law and so also assessment in pursuance thereof. Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. ACIT (2016) ITL 3825 (Del.) (Trib.) The rectification proceedings

Brij Bihari Agrawal, Jaipur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

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 ... relating to a matter bearing on the assessment 34 DTR 49 CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (SC) Reassessment — Reason to believe — Change of opinion — After 1 April, 1989, power to reopen is much wider — However, mere “change of opinion” cannot per se be reason to reopen — AO has power

Income Tax Officer - 19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kuverben Kantilal Raval, Mumbai

In the result all the grounds of the appeal of the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2066/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm A.Y.2013-14 The Income Tax Officer Kunverben Ratilal Raval 7, Taldhwaj Bhavan 19 (2) (2) Mumbai 3 Road 503, 5Th Floor, Pinjrapole Lane Vs. Piramal Chambers Mumbai 400004 Lal Baug, Parel Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aadpr8076L Assessee By Mr Mitesh Mehta Ca Revenue By Shri P D Chougule Adl Cit Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 14-08-2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

Section 131Section 143Section 144BSection 147Section 148

circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee due to change of opinion without appreciating the facts that the assessment was reopened based on the information about the client code modification by the assessee which was received subsequent ... officer is in appeal before us. 11. The learned departmental representative pressing ground number 1 of the appeal submits that there is no change of opinion because the information was received subsequent to the completion of the assessment under section 143 (3) of the act. Further the assessee has entered

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Suryachandra Lalmani Dubey, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 206/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

reopening was based on fresh and tangent material received by the Assessing Officer. Further it is not in dispute that there was change of opinion. 3.7 This is not a case of borrowed satisfaction as contended by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). The information was received from

DCIT, C-1, Kolkata vs. Naba Dignata Water Management Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenus is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is not press in view of our findings on forgoing

ITA 887/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: proceeding for disallowances the AO has conducted necessary examination and ground work, which are evident from the recordings of note-sheet.

Section 147Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)

reopened only if the learned AO has reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and not merely on the ground of change of opinion on the same set of facts. e) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Respondent prays that

Preet International Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3600/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarpreet International Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 240, Ff, Dda Office Complex Circle-20(1), Cycle Market, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extn, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco9321J Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Ms. Supriya Mehta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

both on facts and in law in confirming the addition despite the fact that the assessment u/s147, cannot be made on account of change of opinion. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming

Gayatri Creatives, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(2) Now Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

time of original assessment and it is settled position of law that the assessment cannot be re-opened for a mere change of opinion.” 3. The assessee filed his return of income of Rs.42,98,920/- for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 24.03.2011. The assessment under Section ... further submitted that it is settled position of law that the assessment cannot be reopened for mere change of opinion. On merit, the ld. AR submitted that the work-in-progress furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings clearly reveal that closing work-in-progress was Rs.7

Knr Constructions Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed, and the

ITA 650/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iti)

Agriculture income of Rs.7,25,53,044/- in reassessment u/s 147 though the Assessing Officer entertained Change Of Opinion. 3. The CIT (A) erred in not giving direction to the A.O to physically verify the suitability of subject lands for cultivation and ought to have got the tests like nature

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Knr Constructions Limited, Hyderabad

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed, and the

ITA 629/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iti)

Agriculture income of Rs.7,25,53,044/- in reassessment u/s 147 though the Assessing Officer entertained Change Of Opinion. 3. The CIT (A) erred in not giving direction to the A.O to physically verify the suitability of subject lands for cultivation and ought to have got the tests like nature

Cheyur Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Business Ward - 2(3), Chennai

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

ITA 334/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 54B

reassessment are bad in law. 7. For that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reopening was done on mere change of opinion and hence the assessment is liable to be quashed. The test of change of opinion would be applicable even in a case where ... schematic interpretation" towards "reason to believe" failing which Section 147 would confer arbitrary powers to AO to reopen assessments on the basis of "change of opinion" which is no longer available to the AO under the Income Tax Act to reopen completed assessments 17. In line with the above

Goyal Vegoils Limited, Kasar, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle -2, Kota

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

ITA 243/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

entry and commission paid thereupon, when the reopening was based on identical facts as during the earlier reassessment proceedings and thus amounted to change of opinion which is not a valid ground for reopening of assessment, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Mangalam Publications ... during the course of regular assessment / reassessment carried out, for these reasons the ld. AO noted that it is not a case of change of opinion by the ld. AO. Since there was passage of four years from the end of assessment year under consideration necessary permission to issue

ACIT, Circle-24(1), Mumbai vs. Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja, Mumbai

In the result, the cross the result, the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1987/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-24(1), Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja, 601, 6Th Floor, K-1, Balkrishna Chs, Jp Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Road, Andheri West, Parel, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Amgps 5143 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay SinghFor Respondent: 08/07/2024
Section 69A

Assessing Officer erred in reopening of Assessment due to 3. The Ld Assessing Officer erred in reopening of Assessment due to change of opinion without appreciating that original assessment u/s change of opinion without appreciating that original assessment u/s change of opinion without appreciating that original assessment ... Assessing Officer to r would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

This fact in itself makes the picture very clear that reopening has been carried out based only on borrowed satisfaction and a mere change of opinion. Though various judgments have been referred by Ld. Counsel for the assessee, we will first take note of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT ... power to review his own order - Query raised by Assessing Officer answered and accepted during original assessment - Reopening of assessment on mere change of opinion - Not permissible - KNIGHT RIDERS SPORTS PVT. LTD. vs. ASST. CIT (Born.) ITR 459/ Page 16 Page 28 of 31 I.T.A. No. 757 to 759/Kol/2022

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

This fact in itself makes the picture very clear that reopening has been carried out based only on borrowed satisfaction and a mere change of opinion. Though various judgments have been referred by Ld. Counsel for the assessee, we will first take note of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT ... power to review his own order - Query raised by Assessing Officer answered and accepted during original assessment - Reopening of assessment on mere change of opinion - Not permissible - KNIGHT RIDERS SPORTS PVT. LTD. vs. ASST. CIT (Born.) ITR 459/ Page 16 Page 28 of 31 I.T.A. No. 757 to 759/Kol/2022

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

This fact in itself makes the picture very clear that reopening has been carried out based only on borrowed satisfaction and a mere change of opinion. Though various judgments have been referred by Ld. Counsel for the assessee, we will first take note of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT ... power to review his own order - Query raised by Assessing Officer answered and accepted during original assessment - Reopening of assessment on mere change of opinion - Not permissible - KNIGHT RIDERS SPORTS PVT. LTD. vs. ASST. CIT (Born.) ITR 459/ Page 16 Page 28 of 31 I.T.A. No. 757 to 759/Kol/2022

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Raheja Universal Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4847/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, CA
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 250

that it would require due diligence by the AO to extract these information. For the aforesaid reasons, it is not a case of change of opinion by the AO. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction

Shri Bhanvarlal Champalal Kanuga, Unjha vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmeabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 95/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.95/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Bhanvarlal Champalal The Principal Cit बनाम/ Kanuga Range-3 C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate Pratyakash Kar Bhavan V/S. 512, Times Square – I Ahmedabad Opp. Ram Baug Bungalows Nr. Ravija Plaza Thaltej-Shilaj Road Ahmedabad – 380 059. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acmpk 0172 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan H. Shah, Ar & Shri Aman Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pushpendra Singh Chaudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 29/03/2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit(A)” In Short] In Exercise Of The Shri Bhanvarlal Champalal Kanuga Vs. Pr.Cit-3 Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Pushpendra Singh
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

incurring expenditure out of exempt agriculture income of Rs. 1,18,77,893/- and therefore, the present proceeding u/s 263 is amounts to "Change of Opinion" based on the facts on record and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 3. That Pr. CIT has erred in not appreciating ... source of payment of Rs. 66,00,000/-made towards purchase of land and therefore, the present proceeding u/s 263 is amounts to "Change of Opinion" based on the facts on record and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 4. That Pr. CIT has erred in not appreciating

M/S Fancy Enterprises, Kolkata vs. A.O. Cir. 32, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 797/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Fancy Enterprises Ao,Circle-2 2, Ganesh Chandra, Income Tax Office Avenue, Bentick Street, 10B Middleton, Calcutta Vs. Commerce House West Bengal-700071 West Bengal-700 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaff5111B Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

relevant year. 5. For that the proceedings-initiated u/s 147 after expiry of four years from end of assessment year on change of opinion were bad in law. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld AO making the addition ... opinion that the conditions precedent for re-opening of the assessment beyond four years are not satisfied. The re-assessment was on change of opinion. There are no allegations of suppression of material fact. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the High Court in setting aside