“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

Snr Electronics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 937/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292CSection 68Section 69C

into by the assessee with a number of concerns which had made accommodation entries and they were not genuine transactions, was neither a change of opinion nor did it convey a particular interpretation of a specific provision which was done in a particular manner in the original assessment and sought

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ecgc Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3813/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234B

view on the basis of the communication noted earlier, the act of reopening the assessment would have to be regarded as a mere change of opinion which has also not been based on any tangible material. Consequently, we hold that the reopening of the assessment is contrary

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ecgc Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3812/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234Section 234B

Ecgc Limited, Ecgc Bhawan vs. ACIT, New Marine Lines Mumbai

ITA 3551/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234Section 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

Ecgc Limited, Ecgc Bhawan vs. ACIT, New Marine Lines Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3544/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234B

Ecgc Limited, Ecgc Bhawan vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3543/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234B

Ecgc Limited, Ecgc Bhawan vs. AO, New Marine Lines, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3542/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234B

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 979/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.979/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Institute Of Indian Foundrymen…................…...……………....Appellant Iif Centre, 335 Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700107. [Pan:Aaatt6606M] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Kolkata…...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 26, 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 07.08.2023 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. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That The Assessee Before The Ld. Cit(A) Had Taken Legal Ground Relating To The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment & Also Contested The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer On Merits. The Ld. Counsel Has Invited Our Attention To Para 5 Page 7 Of The Impugned Order From Where The Discussion On The Legal Ground Taken By The Assessee Relating To The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment Commences & The

Section 147Section 250

original assessment proceedings. Therefore I agree with the contention of the appellant that the assessment is re-opened on the basis of change of opinion, hence the re-opening of the assessment is not valid has held by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of CEAT Ltd dated

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1809/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit Circle – 3(3)(1), R. No. 609, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. Small Industries Development Bank Of India Sme Development Centre, C-11, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan – Aabcs3480N ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kabra, Ld. AR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)

Small Industries Development Bank of India 1. "The Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the reopening was made on the ground of change of opinion when no opinion was formed by the AO on the issue of re-computation of the deduction u/s 36(1) (viii ... issue had already been dealt with by the revenue during the original assessment proceeding itself, reopening the matter would be tantamount to a change of opinion; otherwise, there is nothing wrong in these proceedings carried out by the department. 7. In addition to the above communication between the assessee

Ropar District Co-Operative Union Limited, Mohali vs. PCIT, Chandigar-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 360/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AAKASH DEEPJAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 269USection 53A

PCIT, Chandigarh, passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 ( in short ‘the Act’) is nothing other than a change of opinion, ITA 360/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 2 particularly so when the AO has followed the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the earlier orders ... raised by the assessee, the same is hereby accepted. The order under appeal is found to be a result of a mere change of opinion entertained by the ld. PCIT, as correctly contained on behalf of the assessee. The said order passed by the ld. PCIT is, accordingly, reversed

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CITA) was right in quashing the reassessment proceeding by holding that reassessment proceeding was change of opinion but not regarding any factual finding or information, whereas in this assessee's case, based on RAP objection the case was reopened and new material ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in quashing the reassessment proceeding by holding that reassessment proceeding was change of opinion but not regarding any factual finding or information, without appreciating the fact that as per explanation 1 to the provided clause of section 147 - "Production before

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

ITO 28 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gahlot Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue & CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2475/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-28(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Gahlot Construction Room No. 329, Tower No. Plot No-28A, Gahlot Vs. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Railway Complex, Sector-10, Station, Navi Mumbai- Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400703. 400703. Cross Objection No. 82/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Gahlot Construction बिधम/ Ito-28(1)(1) Plot No-28A, Gahlot Room No. 329, Tower Vs. No. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Complex, Sector-10, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400703. Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofm5698J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Ritika Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue; & The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection (Co) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2021 For The Ay. 2008-09. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5 Cr Which Was Added By The

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 68

material facts. Further, according to assessee, in the aforesaid circumstances, the action of re-opening and resultant reassessment at best tantamount to change of opinion; and moreover, the re-opening of assessment is bad in law for not providing a copy of the approval taken

Vanpool Consulting and Advisory Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2068/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevanpool Consulting & Advisory Pvt., Ltd., V. Dcit – Cc – 1(2) 1501, Orient Height Room No. 906, Ninth Floor Rajaram Mohanrai Road Pratishtha Building, M.K. Road Grant Road (E), Mumbai - 400004 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacv2355C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.V. Desai Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153C

oath have retracted the statements. No details were furnished to the appellant company. 7. The re-opening of assessment is purely based on change of opinion on the same facts on record and there is no valid or reasonable cause to re-open the assessment. Voluminious details and information ... forwarded the copy of the same. Further, he submitted that the whole issue raised by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings nothing but change of opinion considering the fact that the same income was subject to assessment under section 143(3) as well as reassessment under section 143 r.w.s. 153C

Kotari Srinivasa Rao, Undrajavaram Mandalam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry

In the result, additional ground raised is allowed

ITA 335/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.335/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Kotari Srinivasa Rao Vs. Principal Commissioner Of D.No.1-91, Canal Road Income Tax Velivennu Rajahmundry Undrajavaram Mandal West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Apjpk9870N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Md.Afzal,ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

initiating the proceedings u/s 263, without application of mind and basing on the recommendations of the successive Assessing Officer which is a mere change of opinion. 5. We have heard the Ld.AR and gone through the petition filed for admission of additional ground. The additional ground being a technical

Ntpc Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Special Range-06, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1811/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

therefore, assuming jurisdiction by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act to reassess the completed assessment is nothing but change of opinion which has not been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 561 wherein the Hon'ble court has held ... wrong. Section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion.” 11. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Usha international 3 48ITR 485 wherein

Ntpc Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Special Range-06, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1810/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rajinderkaur Sarabjitsingh Bagai L/H Rajvit Bagai, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 344/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

order as and today. The Ld. Counsel also made a submission the Rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer is amount to change of opinion only and reviewing his own order which is not permissible in law and therefore Rectification order is liable to be quashed. 7. We have given ... thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. The assessee’s submission that the Rectification order is amounting to change of opinion is not legally correct, since the details of payments of Employee’s contribution towards PF/ESI are clearly reflecting in the Tax Audit Report filed in Form

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 38/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw

Section 80Section 80I

solely in view of specific directions given by Ld.CIT(A) i.e. without any application of mind by the sanctioning authority which amount to change of opinion, ignoring the specific direction given by another Ld.CIT(A) u/s150 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has erred while considering ... section 143(2) of the Act and assessment was reopened without application of mind on same set of documents which is nothing but change of opinion. The assessee further submitted that regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act has already been completed, therefore as per the proviso