“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

Shri Prabodh Sadashiv Sadavarte (HUF), Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 377/NAG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Saket BhattadFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54B

u/s.148 by the AO. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant that the issue of notice u/s.148 by the AO is a mere change of opinion is not sustainable in the eyes of law, the same being devoid of any merits. The return in this case was processed

Chhattisgarh State Beverage Corporation Ltd., Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 198/RPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 198/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Limited Aabkari Bhavan, Chokra Nala, Labhandi, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc3163B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

therefore, he had clearly traversed beyond the scope of his jurisdiction for reopening such concluded assessment on the basis of a mere “change of opinion”. Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1801/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250

erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the order u/s 147, which is mere change of opinion and therefore the reopening is bad in law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming

Forever Flourishing Fin. & Inv. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6120/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147

same set of facts issue of notice us 148 of the Act on the same set of facts and circumstances is nothing but change of opinion which and circumstances is nothing but change of opinion which and circumstances is nothing but change of opinion which is not permissible ... information, which was already available on record, amount to was already available on record, amount to was already available on record, amount to “change of opinion”. The Ld. Counsel in support of contention The Ld. Counsel in support of contention, relied on the The Ld. Counsel in support of contention

Forever Flourishing Fin & Inv. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6040/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147

Jayton Trading Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/RPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.65/Rpr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Jayton Trading Private Limited, Vs Dcit (Central)-2, Raipur 15, Crooked Lane, 1St Floor, Hare Street, Kolkata Pan No. :Aaacj 6659 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate, Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31 /07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Bhopal, Dated 06.07.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Dated 06/07/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act Dated 30/12/2019 Are Illegal & Void Ab Initio. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Not Confirming That The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2019 Is Bad In Law. 2.1 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Not Holding That The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2019 Is Time Barred By Limitation In View Of First Proviso To Section 147 Of The Act. 2.2 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Confirming The Reason Recorded U/S 148(2) Of The Act Though The Same Is Only A Change Of Opinion On Account Of Borrowed Satisfaction Without Application Of Mind By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

first appellate authority erred in confirming the reason recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act though the same is only a change of opinion on account of borrowed satisfaction without application of mind by the assessing officer. 2 2.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... which was barred by limitation in view of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act though the same is only a change of opinion on account of satisfaction without application of mind by the AO. It is further submitted that the first appellate authority erred in allowing

Ravi Mahexa, Daman and Diu vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman Ward, Daman

ITA 195/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40ASection 68

conducted and the view adopted by the assessing officer in the present case, if not accepted by the Ld. PCIT, is nothing but change of opinion. It is settled position in law that no revision of assessment order is permissible on mere change of opinion. 21. As we have already

Ravi Mahexa, Daman and Diu vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman Ward, Daman

ITA 194/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40ASection 68

Ravi Mahexa, Daman and Diu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Vapi

ITA 193/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40ASection 68

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT

Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

order passed in the regular assessment proceedings. Thus, issuing the impugned notices on the above ground would, prima-facie, amount to a change of opinion.” [Para 6] 9. In the present case, the assessment proceedings have been diligently conducted based on cogent arguments, thus, the Ld. PCIT had no jurisdiction ... already framed an opinion on the given facts. Rather, assuming power to revise the well-opined assessment order shall mean change of opinion and in no case, can a proceeding be initiated on account of change of opinion. The noble courts of our country at various instances have held that

R Vaidyanathan, Mumbai vs. ACIT-27(3), Navi Mumbai

ITA 1443/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. M.M.Golvala , A.R. &For Respondent: Shri. B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R

Section 114GSection 143(3)Section 147

granting cross examination to the Appellant. 8) Both the lower authorities erred in resorting to the provisions of section 147 on a mere change of opinion. 9) Both the lower authorities erred in disallowing Rs.10,84,985/- out of F&O losses to be carried forward. 10) Both the lower

Shrimati Amarjit Kaur W/O Bugar Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Mansa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 49

particulars of the return, processing is done under s. 143(1) or assessment is made under s. 143(3). No doubt, mere change of opinion by itself is not a ground for reassessment as held in the judgments relied upon on behalf of the assessee but if there are reasons ... arise at that stage. Therefore, in case of intimation u/s 143(1), re-opening cannot be challenged on the ground of change of opinion. i) Tilak Raj Bedi Vs. JCIT 319 ITR 385 P&H The power of reassessment can be validly exercised if satisfaction is arrived at after following

DCIT-CC 5(2), Mumbai vs. Jetair Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3050/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

evade tax. He submitted that this issue was not examined at the time of original assessment and therefore it would not amount to change of opinion and consequently refer the reopening bad in law. He thus submitted that the petition be dismissed. 17. The Hon’ble High Court on these

Relx Inc, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward International Taxation-3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1085/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Basanta, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

taken. 3.3 The assessee responded to the above SCN. It contended that Section 263 cannot be invoked for a mere change of opinion; that the receipts in respect of services would not qualify as FTS/FIS under Article 12(4) of India- USA DTAA as these are not technical services; that

Mrs Sunita Shyam Malpani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 344/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunita Shyam Malpani, Vs. Ito 25(1)(3), 701,Plot No.117, Room No.703, Karanapartment, Kautilyabhavan, Lokhandwalacomplex, Bandra Bkc, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No.Acppm8552J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10Section 143Section 144ASection 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

stock. capital gain. The assessment U/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 was completed merely on the basis of change of opinion. In view of the above, the said order passed should be squashed as the reopening of the assessment is not justified

Shri Sham Lal & Sons, Amritsar vs. Principal Commissioner of Inome Tax Central, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 103/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

agitated the issue and verified during the assessment proceeding. So, there is a change of opinion in between ld. AO and the ld. PCIT. Accordingly, the order u/s 263 be quashed. 5. The ld. DR vehemently argued and placed that the ld. AO had not made any proper inquiry

Aruna Tiwari, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

ITA 90/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

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

assessee specifically raised the point of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, contending that the notice of reopening was prompted by a mere change of opinion. The AO rejected plea of the assessee but the AAC accepted this ground and also held the reassessment to be bad in law on jurisdictional

Shri Murlimanohar Ramkishan Mundhra, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 158/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.158/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Murlimanohar Ramkishan Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), (Old Ward- Mundhra, 301 To 308, Vs 1(2)(3) Surat, Aayakar Third Floor, Shree Krishna Market, Near Metro Tower, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Ring Road, Surat-395002 Surat-395001 Pan No: Aflpm 6057 P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sudhir Surana, Ca & Shri Om Prakash Soni, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal Instituted On 03.03.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.05.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 18.07.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Ld. Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 13.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.11.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal:- Murllimanohar R Mundhra “1. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts Confirming The Reassessment Proceeding Initiated By The Ld. Ao, Without Properly Appreciating The Submission Of The Appellant.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 57

said expenses under section 57(iii) and after considering the said submission, assessment order was passed. Thus, re-opening assessment order nothing but change of opinion. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons, himself recorded “it was seen from the records that as per the assessee that said amount ... recorded itself proved that facts were well within the knowledge of Assessing Officer during original assessment. Hence, re-assessment proceeding is nothing but change of opinion. To support such submission, assessee relied upon the decision of 6 Murllimanohar R Mundhra Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

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 which is not permitted in the eyes of the law. In the light of the aforesaid discussion we hold that the order of the PCIT

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia, Tonk vs. PCIT Central, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 102/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 5

despite there being complete application of mind by the AO on the subjected issues and it was nothing but a case of change of opinion, based on which, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 is not permissible. The impugned order dt. 29.12.2022 therefore, lacks valid jurisdiction