← 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

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 37/AHD/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6982/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit Vs. Ntpc Ltd. Circle – 18(2) Ntpc Bhawan Core-7 New Delhi Scope Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 Pan No.Aaacn0255D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakrabotry, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate Ms. Supriya Mehta, Ca Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 Order

Section 143Section 147Section 148

challenged before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) was convinced that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are nothing but change of opinion and accordingly held the reopening is bad in law. 5. Before us the DR strongly supported the findings of the AO and in his written ... scrutiny of the assessment recorded revealed” this itself shows that there was no new tangible material available and the AO has simply changed the opinion from the previous AO itself. 8. Moreover during the course of the original assessment proceedings vide notice dated 17.11.2008 at point

Jayantilal Keshavji Chheda, Vile Parle East vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(2)(4), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 2891/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Jayantilal Keshavji Chheda Income Tax Officer Shop No. 1, Vireshwar Krupa, Ward 25(2)(4) Tejpal Road, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai Mumbai – 400 057

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar Meena
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

where the assessee has disclosed all the material facts before the ld. A.O. The ld. AR further contended that it was a mere change of opinion by the ld. A.O. that the assessee’s case has been reopened 3 Jayantilal Keshavji Chheda vs. ITO where there was no application

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

ACIT predecessor in office of the Assessing officer formed an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Mere change of opinion is not valid grounds for reopening the assessment. 4. Sir, we humbly submit that the present case is classic example of mere change in opinion despite being ... settled legal preposition that assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of a mere change of opinion. In this connection we wish to further submit as under:-  At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that the assessment of the appellant was completed u/s 143(3) on 25-01-2016. During

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle.1(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S.Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 154/AHD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 69A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that there was change of opinion as the assessee had already submitted the details of bank account No 10763 maintained with The Social Co. Op Bank Ltd, at the time ... support, reliance has been placed on various case laws which are reproduced hereinabove. It has been submitted that it is merely a "change of opinion" by the AO in respect of the bank account no. 10763 with the Social Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Ahmedabad with respect to the credit entries

Rajatgiri Oil Industries, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-28/Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 475/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 22Section 32

allowed. Hence, the depreciation is not available under these sections. The contention of the assessee with regard to change of opinion was not accepted as in the case of the aassessee, summary assessment was completed u/s 143(1). The Ld. AO had reopened the case for assessment by issuing notice ... same issue until the final outcome of those appeals. Ld. Counsel made detailed submission on this legal issue emphasizing on the change of opinion aspect for the action of Ld. AO. Assessee also claimed that issue relating to depreciation on block of assets had been examined

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1995/MUM/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 80I

believe that income escaped assessment and reconsideration of the same issue on the same set of facts will therefore mean only a change of opinion and there is no reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. 10.5 The Assessee has relied on the Bombay High Court

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1994/MUM/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 80I

believe that income escaped assessment and reconsideration of the same issue on the same set of facts will therefore mean only a change of opinion and there is no reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. 10.5 The Assessee has relied on the Bombay High Court

Nova Estates Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 18(4), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 76/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: The Ld. Ao & Despite Such Scrutiny No Addition Was Made In The Original Assessment Proceedings.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

made in the original assessment proceedings. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in affirming the reopening the assessment due to change of opinion. Assessment proceedings were concluded after due consideration of all facts and material placed before him. In view of the judgments of ITO v. Techspan ... India (P) Ltd (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC) and CIT vs Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC) reopening of assessment merely on change of opinion is bad in law. 6. That the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued without the proper sanction and approval as contemplated under

Sanyukta Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 22(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2455/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Gunjan Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

facts of the case and bad at law as the said re-opening was merely 2 Sanyukta Developers P Ltd., based on change of opinion which is not permissible as per law. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the re- assessment proceedings

Rajatgiri Oil Industries, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 337/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

allowed. Hence, the depreciation is not available under these sections. The contention of the assessee with regard to change of opinion was not accepted as in the case of the aassessee, summary assessment was completed u/s 143(1). The Ld. AO had reopened the case for assessment by issuing notice ... same issue until the final outcome of those appeals. Ld. Counsel made detailed submission on this legal issue emphasizing on the change of opinion aspect for the action of Ld. AO. Assessee also claimed that issue relating to depreciation on block of assets had been examined

Rajatgiri Oil Industries, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

allowed. Hence, the depreciation is not available under these sections. The contention of the assessee with regard to change of opinion was not accepted as in the case of the aassessee, summary assessment was completed u/s 143(1). The Ld. AO had reopened the case for assessment by issuing notice ... same issue until the final outcome of those appeals. Ld. Counsel made detailed submission on this legal issue emphasizing on the change of opinion aspect for the action of Ld. AO. Assessee also claimed that issue relating to depreciation on block of assets had been examined

Rajatgiri Oil Industries, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 335/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

allowed. Hence, the depreciation is not available under these sections. The contention of the assessee with regard to change of opinion was not accepted as in the case of the aassessee, summary assessment was completed u/s 143(1). The Ld. AO had reopened the case for assessment by issuing notice ... same issue until the final outcome of those appeals. Ld. Counsel made detailed submission on this legal issue emphasizing on the change of opinion aspect for the action of Ld. AO. Assessee also claimed that issue relating to depreciation on block of assets had been examined

Rajatgiri Oil Industries, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 334/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

allowed. Hence, the depreciation is not available under these sections. The contention of the assessee with regard to change of opinion was not accepted as in the case of the aassessee, summary assessment was completed u/s 143(1). The Ld. AO had reopened the case for assessment by issuing notice ... same issue until the final outcome of those appeals. Ld. Counsel made detailed submission on this legal issue emphasizing on the change of opinion aspect for the action of Ld. AO. Assessee also claimed that issue relating to depreciation on block of assets had been examined

Mandar Kulkurni, HUF, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 631/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54

regards to ground nos.1 to 3, the Ld. AR submitted that the reopening of the assessee’s case is nothing but change of opinion and in fact in the original assessment, the matter was travelled upto CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has sold residential house ... submitted that the reopening on the very same issue is not justified as Section 147 cannot be invoked in case of change of opinion. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited

JCIT (OSD), I/C DCIT, Circle-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed and appeal/CO of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1897/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. Cross Objection No. 80/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Tata Aia Life बिधम/ Jt. Commissioner Of Insurance Co. Ltd. Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Dcit, Circle-8(3)(1) Peninsula Business Park, Aaykar Bhavan, Room Senapati, Bapat Marg, No. 615, M. K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai- New Marine Lines, 400013. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1759/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Circle-8(3)(1) 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. .

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das (DR)
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 44

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- 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1759/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. 615, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai- 400020. Vs. बनाम / M/S. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013. Cross Objection No. 80/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013. बनाम / Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. 615, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1759/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Vs. Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. 615, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai- 400020. M/S. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das (DR)
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 44

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1757/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 44

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

ITO Ward - 4, Rohtak vs. Surender Dalal, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 7714/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7714/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Ito, Surender Dalal, Ward-4, Vs. Dalal Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak, Haryana Near Petrol Pump, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7490/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Surender Dalal, Ito, Dalal Bhawan, Vs. Ward-4, Near Petrol Pump, Aayakar Bhawan, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

proceedings, the successor- Assessing Officer could not have sought to reopen the proceedings on the same ground as it amounted to a mere change of opinion. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer had based his belief on the fact that the assessee had not filed any return

Surender Dalal, Rohtak vs. ITO Ward - 4, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 7490/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7714/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Ito, Surender Dalal, Ward-4, Vs. Dalal Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak, Haryana Near Petrol Pump, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7490/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Surender Dalal, Ito, Dalal Bhawan, Vs. Ward-4, Near Petrol Pump, Aayakar Bhawan, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

proceedings, the successor- Assessing Officer could not have sought to reopen the proceedings on the same ground as it amounted to a mere change of opinion. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer had based his belief on the fact that the assessee had not filed any return