← 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

DCIT-Circle-3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. S D Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA Nos

ITA 6193/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.6191 To 6194, 6204 & 6033 /Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: Dharmesh Shah &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

facts and circumstances and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified, in holding that reopening of assessment was due to change of opinion, when, the same was on appreciation of facts on records, in the light of information received, leading to formation of belief, that income had escaped assessment ... original Assessment order. Hence, this is not a case where the Assessing Officer sought to review his earlier findings, nor is case of 'change of opinion'. P a g e | 7 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D. Corporation

DCIT-Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. S D Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA Nos

ITA 6192/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.6191 To 6194, 6204 & 6033 /Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: Dharmesh Shah &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

facts and circumstances and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified, in holding that reopening of assessment was due to change of opinion, when, the same was on appreciation of facts on records, in the light of information received, leading to formation of belief, that income had escaped assessment ... original Assessment order. Hence, this is not a case where the Assessing Officer sought to review his earlier findings, nor is case of 'change of opinion'. P a g e | 7 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D. Corporation

DCIT-Circle-3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. S D Corporation Private Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA Nos

ITA 6191/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.6191 To 6194, 6204 & 6033 /Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: Dharmesh Shah &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

facts and circumstances and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified, in holding that reopening of assessment was due to change of opinion, when, the same was on appreciation of facts on records, in the light of information received, leading to formation of belief, that income had escaped assessment ... original Assessment order. Hence, this is not a case where the Assessing Officer sought to review his earlier findings, nor is case of 'change of opinion'. P a g e | 7 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D. Corporation

DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. S D Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA Nos

ITA 6033/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.6191 To 6194, 6204 & 6033 /Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: Dharmesh Shah &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

facts and circumstances and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified, in holding that reopening of assessment was due to change of opinion, when, the same was on appreciation of facts on records, in the light of information received, leading to formation of belief, that income had escaped assessment ... original Assessment order. Hence, this is not a case where the Assessing Officer sought to review his earlier findings, nor is case of 'change of opinion'. P a g e | 7 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D. Corporation

Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

attract the clause (a) or (b) to explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act and thus, it is nothing but a change of opinion and ld. PCIT intend that the enquiry should have been done in the light of the his view which is not permitted in the eyes

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

ITA 702/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 which is merely due to change of opinion and therefore the reopening is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. A.O. erred in reopening the assessment

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

ITA 701/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 which is merely due to change of opinion and therefore the reopening is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. A.O. erred in reopening the assessment

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

ITA 700/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 which is merely due to change of opinion and therefore the reopening is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. A.O. erred in reopening the assessment

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

ITA 699/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 which is merely due to change of opinion and therefore the reopening is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. A.O. erred in reopening the assessment

Procter & Gamgle Hygiene& Healthcare, Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6591/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the same was done purely on change of opinion. This was also rejected by the revenue authorities. Hence the above appeal by the assessee before 5. We have heard the rival submissions. The issue

Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6549/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the same was done purely on change of opinion. This was also rejected by the revenue authorities. Hence the above appeal by the assessee before 5. We have heard the rival submissions. The issue

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 834/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Dcit-8(3)(1) Limited Mumbai 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Vs. Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Harishankar Lal
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

passed by the learned AO as bad in law in so far as passing of such order by the learned AO amounted to change of opinion and reassessment of income as the learned AO added an amount of Rs 315,27,57,788 (i.e. returned income) to the income

Shree Navkar Realinfra Private Limited, Bhilwara vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

invocation of jurisdiction by the PCIT was unsustainable. Thus, it is seen that the views advanced by the PCIT is nothing but a change of opinion and ld. PCIT intend that the enquiry should have been done in the light of his view on the issue, which is not permitted

Shri Vijay Tondon, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 93/RPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 93/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vijay Tondon, H.No.34, Sector-1, Shankar Nagar Road, Gitanjali Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Abupt1550H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 54

dated 31.03.2016, but is a clear case of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act based on a mere “Change of opinion.” As an assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O for disturbing a concluded assessment of an assessee based on a “change of opinion” is not permitted under ... assessee’s case is based on misconceived and incomplete facts; and (ii). the reopening of the concluded assessment based on a mere “change of opinion” is prohibited under law. 15. We, thus, based on our observations above, quash the assessment framed by the A.O u/s. 144 r.w.s

M/S Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Jan Path, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 261/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 147

same material which was already on record while making the assessment u/s 143(3). Thus, it is only a case of change of opinion of AO and not a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The fact of appraising the same material available on record for reopening ... passed the assessment order dt. 17th June, 2021. In addition thereto, the reassessment notice has been issued only on account of ‘change of opinion’, plain and 25 M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. simple, without any tangible fresh material being available to the ITO for reopening the assessment proceedings

Renu Khunteta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward3(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 220/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. H. M. Singhvi (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801ASection 80I

allowing the claim u/s. 801A also issued the notice u/s. 154 for disallowing the claim u/s. 80IA, hence, it was change of opinion and for the change of opinion no order can be made u/s 154; that it was not open to the ITO to go into the true scope ... appellate and material vailable on records, the contentions of the appellate are not tenable. Looking the facts narrated above it a change of opinion and the matter is debatable which cannot be rectified in view of the following decisions.:- 1. T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer v. Volkart Brothers

M/S. Doit Creations (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1354/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdoit Creations (India) Vs. Principal Commissioner Private Limited Of Income Tax, Central 307 & 308, 3Rd Floor,, Circle 3, Room No. 1901, Midas, Sahar Plaza, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (East) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 069 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd8695A Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Dharan Gandhi Respondent By : Neena Jeph Date Of Hearing 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit(Central), Mumbai -3, Dated 31.03.2022 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Pr.Cit Central - 3 (Herein After Referred As 'Pcit) Erred In Invoking Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As 'The Act') By Issuing The Notice Inspite Of The Fact That Assessment U/S. 143(3) & U/S 143(3) R.Ws 147 Of The Act Has Been Completed After Due Examination & Application Of Mind While Framing The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) & U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The Act. Further Order U/S 263 Is Also Passed Merely Setting Aside The Assessment To The File Of The Learned Assessing Officer To Conduct Proper Inquiry Which Is Unjustified. It Is Therefore Submitted That The Order Passed U/S 263 Should Be Cancelled.

For Appellant: Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

PCIT has erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of change of opinion which is barred by the law. 4. Your appellant craves to add, alter, or amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing

Showtime Events India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4239/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Raghvendra Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

opined that the amendments introduced into Section 147 with effect from 1.4.1989 have not altered the position that a mere change of opinion of the AO was not sufficient ground for embarking on a reassessment. Calcutta Discount was duly considered and applied by the Full Bench. The Full Bench further ... 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

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

ITA 703/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 which is merely due to change of opinion and therefore the reopening is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. A.O. erred in reopening the assessment

M/S. Jet Speed Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 32 (1), Mumbai

ITA 63/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Impex Pvt Ltd and concluded the re-assessment accepting the returned income and therefore re-opening for the same reason is nothing but change of opinion. The extract of the notice of reassessment issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 in which the reasons for reopening are recorded ... assessee also submitted that no new material or information was available against the assessee and, therefore, the reopening is nothing but merely a change of opinion. The Assessing Officer rejected the contentions of the assessee. The Assessing Officer held that in the first round of re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing