← 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

Vandanaben Rajbhai Parikh, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 1135/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

assessee’s own donation. The Tribunal, therefore, held that section 263 could not be invoked merely on the basis of a change of opinion or subsequent developments unconnected with the assessee’s assessment. 17. In the present case, however, the revision under section 263 is not founded on a mere ... change of opinion or on a later external event alone. It is I.T.A No. 1135/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2020-21 Page No 8 Vandanaben Rajbhai Parikh vs. Pr.CIT based on concrete factual discrepancies found in the assessment record itself, including incorrect donation receipts and lack of verification of the genuineness and eligibility

Bhavana Suresh Chauhan, Borivali West vs. Ward42(1)(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 7290/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhavana Suresh Chauhan Ito, Ward-42(1)(1), Mumbai 703, Kguru Residency, 1 Babai Naka, Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai, Dharamdas Marg, Borivali West, Maharashtra – 400051. Mumbai – 400097. [Pan No. Adipc1169K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 254(1)Section 68

believe” and no tangible material to justify reopening of the assessment, and that the initiation of proceedings was based on mere suspicion, change of opinion, or borrowed satisfaction. 6. The learned CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that the approval/sanction obtained u/s 151 was mechanical, without proper application

M/S Sheetal Clothing Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5825/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151Section 68

there is no income escaped in case of the appellant and disturbing the finding of completed assessment is purely a case of change of opinion and against the principals propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kelvinator of India (320 ITR 561), since already detailed scrutiny

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4819/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 35D

without distinguishing them on facts. The present case involved a tangible mistake in interpretation/application of law and not a case of mere change of opinion? 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that an issue made to Qualified ... advanced submissions challenging the reopening under section 148 of the Act on the ground that it was based solely on a mere change of opinion and in the absence of any new tangible material. He invited our attention to pages 157 to 160 of the Assessee’s Paper Book

Allen Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. DCIT Central Circle, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2355/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Grover, Shri Viral Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)

unreasonable, uncalled for and bad in law. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order u/s 263 is merely 'change of opinion'. The order u/s 143(3) passed by the Ld. AO does not in any way represent erroneous order. The action

Bscpl Aurang Tollway Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 612/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

Section 143(3)Section 263

toll as an intangible asset and accepted the loss returned after due application of mind. Thus, invoking provisions of Section 263 amounts to change of opinion which is not permissible under the act. 2 The order of Ld. AO is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue

DCIT Circle 1 Nashik, Nashik vs. Shree Sai Properties, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 987/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

raised before the Hon. CIT(A) had challenged the re-opening of assessment u/s 147, arguing the same to be on a change of opinion as well as without any valid and independent belief on the part of the Id AO. The submission of the assessee in this regard

Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(3), Cr Building vs. Jmv Infrastructure Private Limited, Tri Nagar, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 8487/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara**

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

action in lower appellate discussion holding the impugned reopening as not sustainable in law being in the nature of mere change of opinion going by CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 161 3. That being the case, the tribunal hereby notices from the perusal of the case records ... therefore hold in this factual backdrop that the CIT(A)'s lower discussion has already quashed the impugned reopening as a mere change of opinion which does not call for any interference. 4. The Revenue's appeal is dismissed. *Order pronounced in the open court on 27th January

Deupty Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anand Rathi Commodities Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 5983/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, and that the reassessment was based merely on a change of opinion, since both the issues were examined during the original assessment proceedings under section 143(3). 6. On merits, the assessee reiterated that the amount ... void ab initio. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the impugned reopening of assessment is on account of change of opinion and hence invalid and void ab initio. 6 ITA No. 5983/Mum/2025 & Co No.325/Mum/2025 Anand Rathi Commodities Limited 3. The respondent craves leave of Your Honour

Vimal Alloys Private Limited, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab vs. Jao the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Patiala, Punjab

ITA 890/CHANDI/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Vipen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

assessment which were carefully scrutinized by Assessing Officer during original assessment and thus, said reopening notice issued after four years on account of change of opinion was to be set aside - Whether special leave petition filed against order of High Court was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para ... that there was any failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and thus, it was merely a change of opinion - Whether reassessment was justified - Held, no [Para 11] [In favour of assessee] [2024] 159 taxmann.com 51 (Bombay)[29-01-2024] Section 37(1), read

Vikramkumar Kishanlal Mehta, Mahisagar vs. The DCIT, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 313/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.313/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vikramkumar Kishanlal The Dcit बनाम/ Mehta Anand Circle V/S. C/O. Mahesh Masala Gruh Anand – 388 001 Udhyog 21, Gidc Estate Balasinor Mahisagar – 388 255 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqhpm 9958 I (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 05/02/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Vikramkumar Kishanlal Mehta Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2017-19

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68Section 69

formation of belief. 2. The learned AO has erred in reopening of the assessment in as much as it is nothing but change of opinion since the AO has already examined all the transactions during assessment proceedings. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition

Natharam Panaji Choudhary, Pune vs. I.T.O. Ward 8(1), Pune

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

ITA 1826/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

said that the authority has not applied his mind to the issue before it, nor formed any opinion. The principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening a completed assessment would be applicable to only to situations where Assessing Officer has applied his mind

Natharam Panaji Choudhary, Pune vs. I.T.O. Ward 8(1), Pune

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

ITA 1823/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

said that the authority has not applied his mind to the issue before it, nor formed any opinion. The principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening a completed assessment would be applicable to only to situations where Assessing Officer has applied his mind

Bilwa Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1362/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250

escaped assessment, (3) no enquiry being conducted by the assessing officer prior to the issuance of notice; and reopening is based on change of opinion of the assessing officer and (4) lastly the mandatory procedure laid down by this Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 1670/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

Baskar submits that the reassessment is illegal for the reason that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment only on the basis of “change of opinion” to review his earlier order of scrutiny assessment. He drew our attention to page 71 of the paper book, notice dated 02.06.2016 issued under ... further argued that after considering the assessee’s submissions and books of account, reopening of the assessment for denying of exemption is mere “change of opinion”, is illegal and placed reliance in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC). He prayed to allow ground

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,

ITA 1669/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

Baskar submits that the reassessment is illegal for the reason that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment only on the basis of “change of opinion” to review his earlier order of scrutiny assessment. He drew our attention to page 71 of the paper book, notice dated 02.06.2016 issued under ... further argued that after considering the assessee’s submissions and books of account, reopening of the assessment for denying of exemption is mere “change of opinion”, is illegal and placed reliance in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC). He prayed to allow ground

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-4, Chennai

ITA 1667/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

Baskar submits that the reassessment is illegal for the reason that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment only on the basis of “change of opinion” to review his earlier order of scrutiny assessment. He drew our attention to page 71 of the paper book, notice dated 02.06.2016 issued under ... further argued that after considering the assessee's submissions and books of account, reopening of the assessment for denying of exemption is mere “change of opinion", is illegal and placed reliance in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC). He prayed to allow ground

Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Central, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1054/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, with Shri Vartik Choksi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

course of assessment proceeding rather the entire foundation of the order u/s 263 of the Act is found to be based on change of opinion. In the present case, the AO did conduct proper inquiries based on which he came to a legal conclusion, which was plausible and, therefore ... taking different view in the matter. The powers under Section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised only on the basis of change of opinion. It had to be first established that order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, this condition is not found fulfilled

Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Central, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1053/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, with Shri Vartik Choksi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

course of assessment proceeding rather the entire foundation of the order u/s 263 of the Act is found to be based on change of opinion. In the present case, the AO did conduct proper inquiries based on which he came to a legal conclusion, which was plausible and, therefore ... taking different view in the matter. The powers under Section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised only on the basis of change of opinion. It had to be first established that order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, this condition is not found fulfilled

Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Central, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1052/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, with Shri Vartik Choksi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

course of assessment proceeding rather the entire foundation of the order u/s 263 of the Act is found to be based on change of opinion. In the present case, the AO did conduct proper inquiries based on which he came to a legal conclusion, which was plausible and, therefore ... taking different view in the matter. The powers under Section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised only on the basis of change of opinion. It had to be first established that order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, this condition is not found fulfilled