← 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

Colen Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 167/RAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.165 & 167/Ran/2025 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Colen Chemical Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur 1St Floor, Room No.9, Tiwary Bechar Complex, Main Rd. Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcc 3978 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That For The Assessment Year 2013- 2014 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29/01/2016 & For The Assessment Year 2014-2015 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29.12.2016. Notice U/S.148 Of The Act For A.Y.2013-2014 Came To Be Issued On 28.03.2018 & For A.Y.2014-2015 The Notice Was Issued On 24.06.2019. The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Reason Recorded To Reopening For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 At Pages 47 To 51 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

opinion that the conditions precedent for reopening of the assessment beyond four years are not satisfied. The reassessment was on change of opinion. There are no allegations of suppression of material fact. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the High Court in setting aside the reopening notice

Colen Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 165/RAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.165 & 167/Ran/2025 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Colen Chemical Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur 1St Floor, Room No.9, Tiwary Bechar Complex, Main Rd. Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcc 3978 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That For The Assessment Year 2013- 2014 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29/01/2016 & For The Assessment Year 2014-2015 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29.12.2016. Notice U/S.148 Of The Act For A.Y.2013-2014 Came To Be Issued On 28.03.2018 & For A.Y.2014-2015 The Notice Was Issued On 24.06.2019. The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Reason Recorded To Reopening For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 At Pages 47 To 51 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

opinion that the conditions precedent for reopening of the assessment beyond four years are not satisfied. The reassessment was on change of opinion. There are no allegations of suppression of material fact. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the High Court in setting aside the reopening notice

Mamta Madha vs. Haran Agrawal, Ahmedabadvs.the ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1629/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Parvindar Indar Singh, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1002/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

valid in law when there is no failure on the part of the assessee. Further, the reopening is merely based on change of opinion, which is not justified in the eyes of law and relied upon Jurisdictional High Court Judgment I.T.A No. 1001 & 1002/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Page ... were very much before the AO at the time of scrutiny assessment made u/s. 143(3), therefore the reopening of assessment being mere change of opinion was to be set aside by observing as follows: “Section 72, read with sections 143 and 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Losses

Parvindar Indar Singh, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1001/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

valid in law when there is no failure on the part of the assessee. Further, the reopening is merely based on change of opinion, which is not justified in the eyes of law and relied upon Jurisdictional High Court Judgment I.T.A No. 1001 & 1002/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Page ... were very much before the AO at the time of scrutiny assessment made u/s. 143(3), therefore the reopening of assessment being mere change of opinion was to be set aside by observing as follows: “Section 72, read with sections 143 and 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Losses

West Bengal Electronics Industry Development Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1591/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2026AY 2013-2014
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24(1)Section 250

against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the reopening proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act which is based on mere change of opinion and also without satisfying the conditions as provided in proviso to section 147 of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee ... original assessment proceedings and no new information was there before the AO to form belief. Therefore, this is nothing but mere case of change of opinion of the AO. In our opinion, the assessment cannot be reopened on the ground based on the same facts/records which are available before

West Bengal Electronics Industry Development Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1590/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24(1)Section 250

against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the reopening proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act which is based on mere change of opinion and also without satisfying the conditions as provided in proviso to section 147 of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee ... original assessment proceedings and no new information was there before the AO to form belief. Therefore, this is nothing but mere case of change of opinion of the AO. In our opinion, the assessment cannot be reopened on the ground based on the same facts/records which are available before

Apex Civil Engineering, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2766/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2766/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

initiated merely on the Apex Civil Engineering :- 2 -: basis of the Tax Audit Report already on record during original assessment, amounting to a change of opinion. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not examining the merits of the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), which was excessive and unjustified, particularly

Bholenath Foods Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in above terms

ITA 5777/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2012-13 Bholenath Foods Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shop No.208, Ward 47(1), Bldg. No.2612/13, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. Pan: Aabcb3842P

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/NFAC had erred in not appreciating that change of opinion is not permitted in law. Hence,the re-assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. 6. That the alleged approval under Section

Chand Jewellers, Nakodar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

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

ITA 574/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 574/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chand Jewellers, Bazar Sarafan Vs. Ito-Ward Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [Pan:-Aahfc5908J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Bajaj, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

notice under section 148 of the Act are illegal, void ab initio, and unsustainable in law, as the same were based on mere change of opinion and absence of fresh tangible material, and are thus vitiated. 3. That the addition of Rs. 1,03,83,030/- made under section

Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Mansa vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bathinda

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 695/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148aSection 250Section 282Section 40A(3)Section 68

because the proceedings-initiated u/s 147/148 of the Act are void ab initio as the proceedings have been initiated on account of change of opinion& further no tangible material came in possession of the AO subsequent to the passing of the original order ... grounds No 1 and 3 , the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the reassessment proceedings has been initiated on the basis of change of opinion because both the issues, firstly the issue of disallowance of expenditure being hit by the provisions of section 40A(3) has been thoroughly examined

Nagarajan Jaya, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kanchipuram

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1815/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 264

present appellate proceedings, we shall now advert to reason for reopening to determine the validity of the jurisdiction from limitation and change of opinion perspective. The reason for reopening is that there is transaction in the savings bank account to the tune of Rs.1,84,07,272/- and therefore

Adhi Kumara Guru, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-22(1), Chennai

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

ITA 120/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaमाननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम"

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, Advocate for Mr.G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

reopening of the assessment on the ground that it was based purely he ground that it was based purely on a change of opinion, which is impermissible in law. However, the on a change of opinion, which is impermissible in law. However, the on a change of opinion, which ... been carried out solely on account of a change of is illegal, as it has been carried out solely on account of a change of opinion. It is contended that even during the original scrutiny opinion. It is contended that even during the original scrutiny opinion. It is contended that

DCIT, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 4047/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that reopening of the assessment is based on change of opinion, ignoring the fact that the case was reopened on the basis of fresh information regarding cash loans given to M/s Radius Estates Developers Put. Ltd. was received ... Mumbai On the facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that reopening of the assessment is based on change of opinion, ignoring the fact that Affidavit, filed by Shri Sanjay Chhabria before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, admitting of receiving cash loans from

DCIT, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 4046/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that reopening of the assessment is based on change of opinion, ignoring the fact that the case was reopened on the basis of fresh information regarding cash loans given to M/s Radius Estates Developers Put. Ltd. was received ... Mumbai On the facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that reopening of the assessment is based on change of opinion, ignoring the fact that Affidavit, filed by Shri Sanjay Chhabria before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, admitting of receiving cash loans from

Maithan Ceramic Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

ITA 1944/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri P.K.Himmatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 269S

provided all the details in the course of original assessment, therefore, the reopening of the assessment was only on the basis of a change of opinion. It was also submitted that the assessee is only required to disclose all material facts and is not obligated to assist the Assessing Officer

Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2179/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Acit, Central Circle 4(3) Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva 15Th Floor, 46C, Chowringhee 110, Kolkata-700107, Vs. Road, Everest House, Kolkata- West Bengal 700071, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs8774P Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 153ASection 68

order sheet dated….. recorded during 1433(3)/ 147 proceedings. For the said reason it is not the case of change of opinion by the ld. Assessing Officer.” 4.7. Thirdly, the objection filed by the assessee to reopening of assessment has not been deposed off by way of speaking order

Sudarshan Jeans Private Limited, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ambala

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1070/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)

reason to believe', failing which Sec. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of 'mere change of opinion', which cannot be per se reason to reopen. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power ... power to reassess, but the reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of 'change of opinion' is removed as contended on behalf of the department, then in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept

Shri Vipul Bansal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5628/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 69C

even beyond four years. Accordingly, the learned DR submitted that the reopening was based on tangible material, was not a case of mere change of opinion, and the conditions prescribed under section 147 were duly satisfied. 30. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record ... formed any opinion on this issue during the original assessment. 36. In such circumstances, the reopening cannot be characterized as a mere change of opinion. Where the Assessing Officer did not have occasion to examine a particular issue in the original assessment due to absence of relevant material, subsequent receipt

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 344/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

assessment, as mandatorily required by Ist proviso to section 147; (b) that the reopening of the assessment is based on a mere change of opinion on the issues which were already examined by the Assessing Officer in depth during the original assessment proceedings under section ... hearing, learned AR has made various legal contentions that the reopening of assessment is bad in law ab inito, being based on change of opinion; notice u/s. 148, having been issued after expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration and incorrect invocation of section