“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

Parshavnath Builders, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri MahendraGargieya ,Adv. &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

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. 15.02.2021 therefore, lacks valid jurisdiction

Jaquar and Company Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi

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

ITA 1984/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

referred to in detail but what has been stated is that the case has not been reopened merely on the basis of a change of opinion. The fact that came to light during the assessment proceedings for assessment year 2011-12 are the basis for reopening the case pertaining

M/S Everest Cycle Mfg. Co., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 969/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmaneverest Cycle Mfg.Co, Ito, Ward 28(1)(3), A-70, Ttc, Midc, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. 6 बनाम/ Industrial Area, Vashi Rly Stn Vs. Tb Road, Commercial Complex, Kopar Khairane, Vashi Navi Mumbai-400709. Navi Mumbai-400703. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfe1144Q (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 24Section 250

08/12/2016 was issued without disposing of the objection raised by the appellant during appellate proceedings. b. The impugned reassessment proceedings were tantamounting to change of opinion since original assessment proceedings u/s143(3) was already passed on same set of pertaining to repair and maintenance expenses

Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 672/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 672/Del/2018 (A.Y 2008-09)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 234BSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 43B

erred in completing upholding the 3 ITA. 672/Del/2018 Motorola Solutions India validity of the reassessment proceedings which were initiated merely on change of opinion of the Ld. AO. 6. That the Ld. AO / Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in disallowing / upholding ... disclosed its stand on allowability of the above expense during the course of assessment proceedings and therefore the reassessment proceeding is a mere change of opinion. 7. That the Ld. AO / Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in disallowing / upholding the disallowance

Maxtech Realty Pvt. Ltd(Formerly Known As Nandivardhan Construction Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-2, Thane

ITA 690/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153(3)Section 153ASection 250

been invoked in the case of the assessee on material facts being concealed by the assessee and not mere a change of opinion as raised in the objection raised by the assessee vide letter dated 08.11.2016.In view of the above facts, the objections raised by the assessee are not tenable ... verification, the AO accepted the same as genuine. Therefore, it can easily be construed that reopening has been done merely due to change of opinion. Further the AO without making specific inquiry before reopening of the case merely relied on the information received from the Investigation Wing and without corroborating

The ACIT Cent. Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. Airmid Developers Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue/Department stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2381/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrythe Acit, Cc-6(4), Vs Airmid Developers Ltd. Room No. 1925, 19Th M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Floor, Connought Place, Air India Building, New Delhi-110001. Nariman Point, Pan: Aagca5601G Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

adverse view in respect of finance cost. Thus, the reopening of the assessment on the issue of finance cost was on account of change of opinion. For this, the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Marico Limited ... opinion was formed by the AO at the time of passing order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, there is no change of opinion in respect of allowability of finance cost, on the basis of which the assessment is reopened. Accordingly the additional ground raised by the appellant

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed and of Assessee is allowed

ITA 5744/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)

income of the assessee company. He further noted that no accounting taxing event happened to necessitate such change and it was a mere change of opinion on the part of the superior of the assessee company be binding on the assessee by reasons of hierarchy. Hence, the amount

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed and of Assessee is allowed

ITA 5743/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)

Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed and of Assessee is allowed

ITA 5578/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

ITA 1952/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

view on the basis of the communication noted earlier, the act of reopening the assessment would have to be regarded as a mere change of opinion which has also not been based on any tangible material. Consequently, we hold that the reopening of the assessment is contrary

DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1750/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

Dy, CIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Epc Offshore Subsea Projects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3834/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath DasFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Ld.CIT(A) erred in quashing the notice issued u/s 148 on the ground that notice u/s 148 is nothing but change of opinion without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not objected to proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. On the facts ... quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act holding that reassessment proceedings has been initiated on account of change of opinion as the issue of share premium was duly considered by the Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) held that no addition

Smt. Ushaben Varma, Jamnagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 69/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot26 May 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

error or omission while passing the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act thus, the order of the PCIT is nothing but a change of opinion and is required to be quashed. 12. The Id. PCIT, Jamnagar has erred in directing the AO to do the mode of inquires ... thus, the direction given by the Ld. PCIT is bad in law as well as on facts and this there is change of opinion and he has failed to established where the AO has made wrong in passing the order under question. Merely the AO has not conducted the inquiries

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Facilities Management Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2945/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrunal Parekh

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B(3)

Assessment Year. In this case the A.Y. being A.Y. 2012-13, the period ended on 31.03.2013. 1. Thus, there was clear involvement of "change of opinion" and the proceedings of reopening could be valid and legal only if there was no full and true disclosure of material facts ... accordingly submitted that Ld.CIT(A) without appreciating the facts of the case, invalidated section 147 of the Act on the ground of “change of opinion” on the same sets of the facts. 12. On the contrary, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the questionnaire issued

Saarthak Vanijya India P. Ltd., Varanasi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1473/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Singhavi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153ASection 43(5)

exchange being part of record, the reopening u/s 147 is on account of re- appreciation of facts already on record and tantamount to change of opinion and as such the notice u/s 148 is not sustainable under the facts and law. (iv) That the reasons for reopening having been recorded

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

been placed before the Ld. AO at the time of scrutiny assessment. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. AO has merely changed his opinion without any fresh tangible material on record and he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Commissioner ... recording reasons under section 147 he could have said even in the original orders of assessment. Thus, it is a case of mere change of opinion which does not provide jurisdiction to the assessing officer to initiate proceedings under section 147.” 19. Judicially following the ratio laid down

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Systematix Holdings Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 470/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit-2(3)(1), M/S Systematix Holding R.No. 552, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 2Nd Floor, J K Somani Bldg. Mumbai-400020. British Hotel Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaics 4642 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Gaurav Kabra Revenue By : Dr. Koshor Dule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Dr. Koshor Dule, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

addition made by impermissible. Thus, it can be seen that the addition made by the AO is clearly on the basis of the change of opinion and the AO is clearly on the basis of the change of opinion and the AO is clearly on the basis of the change