← 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

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2785/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer V. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli) R.N. 234, 2Nd Floor 12/A Yusuf Building Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc Veer Nariman Road, Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400051 Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aapfs0181B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan Department Represented By :

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

time of original assessment proceedings and therefore to verify the same facts on the basis of the same documents amount to change of opinion. 10. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Asian Paints Limited v. DCIT [308 ITR 195] had the occasion to consider ... inadvertently the same were not taken into account while framing the assessment and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is a change of opinion." According to respondent No. 1, thus, the relevant material was available on record, but he failed to apply his mind to that material in making

The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara vs. M/S. Safal Homes, Ahmedabad

ITA 90/AHD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that reassessment notice issued by AO was on account of change of opinion on part of subsequent AO and there is nothing on record to prove that there was failure on part of appellant to disclose material facts along

Anoop Nopany, Kolata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1381/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1381/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anoop Nopany………………….…….…................…...……………....Appellant P-39, 2Nd Floor, Princep Street, Kolkata- 700072. [Pan: Abfpn3215L] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Narendra Kedia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23, 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 19.07.2023 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 In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(Appeal) Nfac, Failed To Notice That Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3)/263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Void Ab-Initio, Lacks Jurisdiction Since Original Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passes U/S 143(3) Was Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio. & Consequentially Any

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

assessment and again made addition. On appeal, assessee re-agitated point of validity of re- assessment proceedings on ground that there was mere change of opinion. AAC found that no reasons were recorded by ITO before issuing notice for re-assessment and, therefore, held that ITO had no jurisdiction

Bengal Mill Stores P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1204/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Bengal Mill Stores P. Ltd. 205, Maganlal Chamber, Dcit- Circle 6(1)(2) Baburao Bobde Marg, Iron Mumbai-400 Vs. Market Mumbai-400 009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb2473Q : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2024 19.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)(c)

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 merely on the basis of change of opinion, presumption and surmises and borrowed satisfaction and recording reasons in respect of only 5 parties and therefore rendering the whole assessment

Kalyanasundaram Bharath Hari, Chittlapakkam, Chennai vs. ITO, Int. Tax Ward 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 307/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 54

appreciate that in the absence of fresh and tangible materials, the re-opening of assessment to verify transaction of sale would amount of change of opinion which should be considered as nullity in law. 10. The ITO, Int. Taxn Ward 1(1), Chennai / DRP failed to appreciate that the procedure

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Jyoti A. Kulkarni, Pune

ITA 5119/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni, Pune vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 5073/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri ChandrasekharFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair – (SR DR)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni, Pune vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 5070/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri ChandrasekharFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair – (SR DR)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni, Pune vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(3), Mumbai

In the result ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to give benefit on whole deposit of Rs

ITA 5067/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal- A.Y.2007-08 - A.Y.2008-09 - A.Y.2009-10 - A.Y.2010-11 - A.Y.2011-12 - A.Y.2012-13

For Appellant: Shri ChandrasekharFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair – (SR DR)

opinion, in absence of any fresh evidence, order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is nothing but a change in opinion and that is not permissible at all in law. Mrs. JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI 11. In a matter before Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ... clear view that the action of AO is not sustainable as the same falls in the category of change of opinion, as there is no corroborative evidence gathered between the original assessment and assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Considering the facts and material before

V.K.Nanavaty Share and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2614/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2614/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) V. K. Nanavaty Share & बिधम/ Ito, Ward-4(2)(4) R. No. 647, 6Th Floor, Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd Vs. R-709, Rotunda Building, Aaykar Bhavan, Bombay Stock Exchange, Maharishi Karve Road, M. S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai- Churchgate, Mumbai- 400023. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv9670N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue By: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 30.05.2023 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First.

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Nanavaty Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. AO doesn’t have the power to review or it can be termed as change of opinion, unless the AO re-opening the assessment is able to show that in the first round of assessment, assessee has misguided or played fraud ... intends to re-open, the impugned issuance of the re-opening notice on the same facts which were considered earlier, clearly amounts to change of opinion and would be wholly without jurisdiction (Refer Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in Aroni Commercial Ltd. (362 ITR 403). In addition, one should

Modi Entertainment Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 5 (1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed

ITA 3051/DEL/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 4

That the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the reassessment being based merely on change of opinion, was bad in law and void ab- initio. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action

Mehulkumar Arvindbhai Patel, Kadi vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 383/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 383/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Mehulkumar Arvindbhai Patel, The P.C.I.T, 1 & 2 Swami Vevekanand Society, Vs. Ahmedabad-1, Karan Nagar Road, Kadi-382715, Gujarat, India

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the act in setting-aside the order merely on the basis of change of opinion regarding the order passed by the assessing officer. Further the Id. Pr. CIT erred in not considering the fact that the order was passed by the assessing officer

G.S. Dream Home LLP, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 24/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 69A

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

ACIT, Cent Circle-1, Trichy vs. M/S Mangal & Mangal, Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 511/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 511/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal & Mangal, Income Tax, V. 25, N.S.B. Road, Teppakulam, Central Circle -2, Trichy – 620 002. No. 44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaifm-3378-B] Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. Nlay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

earlier assessment proceedings. 2.2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment was reopened on the basis of "Change of Opinion" without appreciating that the assessee has not furnished the details called for during the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A and no opinion was formed by the assessing officer ... Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged reopening of assessment on the ground that, the Assessing Officer has reopened assessment on ‘change of opinion’ without there being any fresh tangible material came to his possession, subsequent to completion of assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A

M/S Godawari Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1445/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein it is stated that expression “reason to believe” cannot comprehend mere change of opinion which would only amount to an impermissible review. An assessment cannot be reopened merely to verify the genuineness of expenses/claims. 8.2. On the contention of the assessee

Spectrum Foods Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

According to the appellant, the AO's decision to reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act was based on a change of opinion, which made it invalid. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant stated that the reopening of the assessment under section 147 read with section ... issued indicating that the income declared in the return was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the principle of change of opinion that prevents the AO from reopening of the assessment is not applicable to this case. 4.2.8. Information can be derived from either internal or external

Ayesa Ingenieria Y Arquitectura S.A., Noida vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2174/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sarin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 195Section 201Section 40Section 7(3)

previous years assessments, contention of the appellant has been accepted by Income Tax Department and action of the Ld. AO leads to change of opinion which is not sustainable in law. 7. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in ignoring the part ... previous years assessments, contention of the appellant has been accepted by Income Tax Department and action of the Ld. AO leads to change of opinion which is not sustainable in law. 8. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in ignoring the part

Ayesa Ingenieria Y Arquitectura S.A., Noida vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sarin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 195Section 201Section 40Section 7(3)

previous years assessments, contention of the appellant has been accepted by Income Tax Department and action of the Ld. AO leads to change of opinion which is not sustainable in law. 7. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in ignoring the part ... previous years assessments, contention of the appellant has been accepted by Income Tax Department and action of the Ld. AO leads to change of opinion which is not sustainable in law. 8. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in ignoring the part

Golden Weaving Mills Private Limited, Madurai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/CHNY/2023[--]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 987/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Golden Weaving Mills Pvt Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, D.No. 59/11, V. Corporate Ward -1, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai. Madurai – 625 001. [Pan: Aaacg-6671-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M.V. Prasad, Fca By Virtual ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri. M.V. Prasad, FCA by virtualFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148

legally sustainable since the re-opening of assessment by issue of notice u/s 148 is bad in law on account of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer in the absence of any new tangible material coming into his possession indicating income escaping assessment after the completion of the regular

K.P.Construction, Saidapet vs. ACIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 436/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115BSection 153CSection 153D

absence of incriminating material. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition to the extent of Rs.4,88,195/-. :: 3 :: 4. Change of opinion: 4.1. The addition of sundry creditors made by the AO is illegal as the same has been made on a change of opinion