← All Phrases

“change of opinion”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1472,292 judgments

The decision most relied on for change of opinion is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on change of opinion

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar
268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court
695
citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
256 ITR 1 · 2002 · High Court
439
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment under Section 147 based on a mere change of opinion regarding the same material available during the original assessment. Reopening requires fresh, tangible material or information that leads to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.
82 ITR 50 · 1971 · Supreme Court
382
citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.
354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court
366
citing judgments

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

CIT v. Foramer France
264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court
253
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT
308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court
248
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd.
325 ITR 285 · 2010 · High Court
243
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid and void ab initio if initiated based on 'borrowed satisfaction' without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind, or merely on documents already available on record without fresh tangible material.

Judgments citing change of opinion

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

found that the AO has reopened the case U/s. 147. This reopening by the Ld. AO cannot be said to be a change of opinion but based on the conflicting decisions on the same issue available at that point of time. Therefore we are of the considered view that

Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner Or Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 83/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

found that the AO has reopened the case U/s. 147. This reopening by the Ld. AO cannot be said to be a change of opinion but based on the conflicting decisions on the same issue available at that point of time. Therefore we are of the considered view that

Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

found that the AO has reopened the case U/s. 147. This reopening by the Ld. AO cannot be said to be a change of opinion but based on the conflicting decisions on the same issue available at that point of time. Therefore we are of the considered view that

Satya Pal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3024/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate; &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 253Section 54B

form reasons to believe that some income of that particular AY has escaped assessment. This again cannot be based on a mere change of opinion. Further, in terms of Section 151 of the Act such a move will have to have the prior approval of the CIT. Under the scheme

Rati Ram, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3023/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate; &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 253Section 54B

form reasons to believe that some income of that particular AY has escaped assessment. This again cannot be based on a mere change of opinion. Further, in terms of Section 151 of the Act such a move will have to have the prior approval of the CIT. Under the scheme

Satyabir Singh Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3022/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate; &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 253Section 54B

form reasons to believe that some income of that particular AY has escaped assessment. This again cannot be based on a mere change of opinion. Further, in terms of Section 151 of the Act such a move will have to have the prior approval of the CIT. Under the scheme

Kala Ramesh Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward- 23(2)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 581/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekala Ramesh Parmar Ito Ward – 23(2)(6), 2/21,Kishorebuilding, Room No.303, बनाम/ Opp Edward Cinema, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 2Nd Floor, 521, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400002. Mumbai- 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpp6229M (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri.Jitendra Singh.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Abhishek Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 68

which was available on record in the original assessment and no material was available to make reassessment and it is only a mere change of opinion. The Ld. AR has demonstrated the reasons recorded for the reopening of assessment at page 29 to 31 of the paper book. Further ... passed order on 23-03-2015. Therefore the reopening of assessment is based on the same set of facts and is only a change of opinion and no inquiry or independent investigation by the A.O. The assessee in the present reassessment proceedings has submitted letter dated 11-12-2019 placed

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 158/MUM/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit Cir 3(1) Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Icici Towers, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cir. 2(3)(1) Icici Towers, North East Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Wing, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bkc, Bandra(E) Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri. K.C. Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K.C. Selvamani, DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 33Section 47

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 as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India

DCIT, CC-2(2), Mum vs. Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai

ITA 2566/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the 4. Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the impugned acion is mere change of opinion. impugned acion is mere change of opinion. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 5. Without

DCIT, CC-2(2), Mum vs. Shri Narendra S Shah, Mum

ITA 2315/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the 4. Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the impugned acion is mere change of opinion. impugned acion is mere change of opinion. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 5. Without

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Mumbai

ITA 2007/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the 4. Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the impugned acion is mere change of opinion. impugned acion is mere change of opinion. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 5. Without

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 2006/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the 4. Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the impugned acion is mere change of opinion. impugned acion is mere change of opinion. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 5. Without

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mum vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Mum

ITA 2005/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the 4. Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the impugned acion is mere change of opinion. impugned acion is mere change of opinion. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 5. Without

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mum vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Mum

ITA 2004/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the 4. Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the impugned acion is mere change of opinion. impugned acion is mere change of opinion. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 5. Without

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cen Cir-(2), Mumbai

ITA 2003/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the 4. Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the impugned acion is mere change of opinion. impugned acion is mere change of opinion. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 5. Without

The DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 5765/MUM/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit Cir 3(1) Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Icici Towers, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cir. 2(3)(1) Icici Towers, North East Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Wing, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bkc, Bandra(E) Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri. K.C. Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K.C. Selvamani, DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 33Section 47

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 as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India

Sonia Mehta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1453/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 116Section 143Section 153ASection 154Section 200ASection 206CSection 234B

section 115BBE to re-calculate tax whereas there was no mention of evoking this section in original assessment order. Therefore, this being a change of opinion of Ld. AO which is not permissible u/s 154 of 2 Sonia Mehta the Act. Therefore, the whole action of the authorities below

Puri Oil Mills Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7726/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 44A

have erred both on facts and in Law to have uphold the orders of the Assessing Officer initiating the reassessment proceedings on mere change of opinion and on review subsequently of a completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on the same primary and material facts as stood categorically ... said being part of the records and proceedings in original assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act on mere change of opinion and review of the completed assessment, which is impermissible in law. 3. That the worthy CIT(A) was also wrong, unjustified and have erred both on facts

Puri Oil Mills Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6971/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 44A

have erred both on facts and in Law to have uphold the orders of the Assessing Officer initiating the reassessment proceedings on mere change of opinion and on review subsequently of a completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on the same primary and material facts as stood categorically ... said being part of the records and proceedings in original assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act on mere change of opinion and review of the completed assessment, which is impermissible in law. 3. That the worthy CIT(A) was also wrong, unjustified and have erred both on facts

Dinesh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir-6, Jaipur

ITA 17/JPR/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Mrs Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Kumar Choudhary ITA No 268/JP/2015 (3) Jagdish Chandra Boriwal ITA No. 216/Jodh/2017 (4) CIT Vs. K K Enterprises 178 txmann 187 (Rajasthan) (i)) Change of Opinion; Under the facts and circumstances of the case the proceedings initiated U/s 148 of the act, is void ab initio deserves to be quashed ... because questioned transaction has already been adjudicated during the course of original regular assessment proceedings therefore 147/148 proceedings are merely change of opinion without having any tangible material. (1) M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd."v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 32, Mumbai (2008) 167 Txmann 136 (Mumbai