← 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

Goldiam Jewellery Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC 1(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed partly

ITA 3219/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Goldiam International Limited Plot No.16/17 Gems & Dcit, Central Circle 1(2) Vs. Jewelry Complex Seepz Sez Mumbai Andheri East, Mumbai-400 096 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg2271J

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar, DR
Section 10(35)Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148

Assessing Officer of reopening the assessment under Section 147 by issue of notice dated 29.06.2021 under Section 148 which is merely due to change of opinion and therefore reopening is bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case and in law the learned ... Limited; A.Y. 16-17 act. It was further held that the notice to reopen has also been issued on the basis of a change of opinion which is not permissible. After referring to the dates in the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court it was stated that reopening

Suresh Kumar Arora, Hisar vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed as above

ITA 22/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hearing Of Appeal, Which Is Illegal. Hence Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) & Order Of The Assessing Officer, Must Be Quashed.”

For Appellant: Shri V Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 10(10)Section 10(10)(ii)Section 10(10)(iii)Section 147

against the returned income in a sum of Rs.11,37,660/-; ii) initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of change of opinion without there being any reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; ⅲ) passing order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act without disposing

Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

ITA 2748/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Mr. ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 16(2)

tangible material is bad in law; 2.1. reopening in absence of no new tangible material is bad in law; 1.2.2 reopening based on change of opinion with same set of facts is bad reopening based on change of opinion with same set of facts is bad reopening based on change ... various issues. 6.1 Firstly, in ground ground No.1.2.2, the assessee has challenged , the assessee has challenged s bad in law being based on ‘change of opinion’ change of opinion’ on reopening as bad in law being based on ‘ same set of facts. The learned counsel same set of facts

Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

ITA 2747/MUM/2023[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Mr. ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 16(2)

tangible material is bad in law; 2.1. reopening in absence of no new tangible material is bad in law; 1.2.2 reopening based on change of opinion with same set of facts is bad reopening based on change of opinion with same set of facts is bad reopening based on change ... various issues. 6.1 Firstly, in ground ground No.1.2.2, the assessee has challenged , the assessee has challenged s bad in law being based on ‘change of opinion’ change of opinion’ on reopening as bad in law being based on ‘ same set of facts. The learned counsel same set of facts

+DCIT CC- 7(2), Mumbai vs. Sahebrao Deshmukh Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed, while Ground No

ITA 2478/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: The Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deciding the reopening was initiated by Assessing Officer on change of opinion ignoring the fact that reopening can be done on the reasons relevant to subjective opinion and not conclusive findings. 2. Whether on the facts ... claimed by the Assessee, and therefore, it cannot be said that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated on account of change of opinion. Per contra, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee giving 7. a factual background to the deduction of INR 90,72,553/- claimed by the Assessee submitted

Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 250/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

without having valid reasons to ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. believe of escapement of income, on the basis of change of opinion, on borrowed satisfaction and in absence of fresh tangible material, thereby the reassessment order u/s 147 is bad in law." Ground No.4: Issuance ... contention of the assessee that the AO Issued the notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the basis of change of opinion based on borrowed satisfaction, since there was no fresh tangible material on record. Also, the assessee submitted that the AO recorded the reasons based on the information received

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 191/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

without having valid reasons to ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. believe of escapement of income, on the basis of change of opinion, on borrowed satisfaction and in absence of fresh tangible material, thereby the reassessment order u/s 147 is bad in law." Ground No.4: Issuance ... contention of the assessee that the AO Issued the notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the basis of change of opinion based on borrowed satisfaction, since there was no fresh tangible material on record. Also, the assessee submitted that the AO recorded the reasons based on the information received

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 190/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

without having valid reasons to ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. believe of escapement of income, on the basis of change of opinion, on borrowed satisfaction and in absence of fresh tangible material, thereby the reassessment order u/s 147 is bad in law." Ground No.4: Issuance ... contention of the assessee that the AO Issued the notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the basis of change of opinion based on borrowed satisfaction, since there was no fresh tangible material on record. Also, the assessee submitted that the AO recorded the reasons based on the information received

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur vs. M/S Chadda Transport, Chandrapur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 363/NAG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.363/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant M/S.Chadda Transport, Commissioner Of V Kosara Road, Padoli, Income Tax, S Chandrapur, Chandrapur Circle, Maharashtra – 442401. Chandrapur. Pan: Aaafc8556F Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Cross Objection No.01/Nag/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.363/Nag/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S.Chadda Transport, The Assistant Kosara Road, Padoli, V Commissioner Of Income Chandrapur, S Tax, Maharashtra – 442401. Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur. Pan: Aaafc8556F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mukesh Agrawal – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Mrathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 68

Officer(AO) provided copy of reasons. Assessee filed objections before the AO. Assessee challenged the reopening on the ground that it is mere change of opinion and hence bad in law. 3.1 The ld.AR submitted that all the details were submitted during the original assessment proceedings. The ld.AR submitted that ... Therefore, issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on the same issue of “Sale of Vehicles” is nothing but change of opinion. Therefore, the notice under section 148 is bad in law and consequential assessment order is bad in law. The ld.AR invited our attention to section

Om Sai Stone Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(4), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 667/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

factually correct, therefore, the initiation of action under section 147 is not valid. Thus, the reasons recorded are nothing but result of change of opinion. Hence, reopening is held as bad in law and the action thereon is void ab initio. 17. So far as objection

Om Sai Stone Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(4), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 666/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

factually correct, therefore, the initiation of action under section 147 is not valid. Thus, the reasons recorded are nothing but result of change of opinion. Hence, reopening is held as bad in law and the action thereon is void ab initio. 17. So far as objection

Chirag Mishrimal Hirani, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 582/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.582/Srt/2023 (Ay 2007-08) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chirag Mishrimal Hirani Deputy Commissioner Of 301, Divyadarshan Income-Tax, Circle-1(3), Vs Apartments, B/H Umra Police Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, Station, Surat-395001 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan : Amups 4678 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

made certain addition on account of unverifiable 6 Chirag M Hirani purchases, re-opening on the same case is nothing but a change of opinion, which is not permissible under law. 7. On merits of the case, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee substantiated said purchases from

Rohit Manoj Mehra, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 71 1 New Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 2806/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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.” 21. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Usha international 3 48ITR 485 wherein ... income exigible to tax had in his opinion escaped assessment. The argument that the proposed reopening of assessment was based only upon a change of opinion has not impressed us. The assessment order did not admittedly address itself to the question which the Assessing Officer proposes to examine

Suhel Mohamed Salim Bhajjuwala, Bharuch vs. ITO, Bharuch

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

ITA 529/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.529/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Suhel Mohamed Salim Income Tax Officer, Bhajjuwala, Ward-1(3), Bharuch, Vs S-14, Ahmed Nagar Station Road, Hari Kunj Manubar Road, Bharuch- Building, Above Bank Of 392001 Baroda, Bharuch-392001 Pan No: Ajwpb 9750 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

contrary to the settled position of law. The essential element to initiate reassessment proceedings is “reason to believe” and not “change of opinion”. Therefore, the reassessment itself Dimpal R Patel is bad in law and therefore, reassessment proceedings may please be quashed and set aside. 2) In the facts

The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exem), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10(21)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)Section 263Section 35(1)(ii)

assessee further submitted that issuing a notice to undertake proceedings under section 263 on the same issue once again is a mere change of opinion and shall bring hardship to the 7 The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association assessee. The assessee also submitted that the impugned income are arising ... eligible for exemption under section 10(21) of the Act, initiating revisionary proceedings once again on the same issue is only a change of opinion by the Revenue and not sustainable. On merits the ld. AR submitted that as per the provisions of section 10(21) any income

The DCIT, (Intl. Taxn.), Rajkot vs. M/S. Korea South East Power Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 132/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

Section 115ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44B

contrary to the facts as available on record. 4. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that it is a mere change of opinion of the AO in taxing the receipts as FTS completely ignoring the judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT, being the highest fact finding authority which ... returned income” and the “assessed income” being contrary to facts II. the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that it was a mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer in taxing receipts as FTS, being unacceptable and perverse since the ITAT had confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer holding

Dlf Home Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 7(2), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1495/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 147Section 148

been brought on record and the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on perusal of assessment record which is nothing but a change of opinion. Therefore, without any tangible new material, reopening has to be quashed as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator ... 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.” 17. Considering the facts in totality, we set aside the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, thereby setting aside the assessment order dated

Shree Krishna Builders, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 96/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

respective books of account and submitted that the ledger account in respect of entries made. The retraction of the assessee was considered as change of opinion to evade tax and penalty proceedings; therefore, the AO has added the amount of Rs. 28,37,645/- to the income declared

Shree Krishna Colonisers, Raipur vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 95/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

respective books of account and submitted that the ledger account in respect of entries made. The retraction of the assessee was considered as change of opinion to evade tax and penalty proceedings; therefore, the AO has added the amount of Rs. 28,37,645/- to the income declared

Dinesh Dahiya, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 61(1), New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 711/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 148Section 149

initiated the proceedings without having jurisdiction. 2 3. The assessment order passed by the AO is based merely on the change of opinion. 4. Failed to provide the reasonable attention and proper opportunity of hearing which is rendering the appellate order opposed to norms of natural justice. 5. Failed ... Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(Appeals). He 3 further submitted that even otherwise also the assessment is purely based upon change of opinion which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 4. I have heard learned DR and the assessee in person. Apropos to the grounds of appeal