← 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

Shri Sukhjinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Prinicpal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 263

order was passed by the Id. AO. It cannot be said that the issue was untouched and unverified by the assessing authority. Mere change of opinion an order cannot be called as erroneous. We directed that the order passed by the PCIT is unjust for, and the order is setting

Shri Keshoraipatan Sahkari Sugar Mills Limited, Kota vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

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 and/or suspicion, based on which, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 is not permissible. The impugned order dt. 27.03.2022 therefore, lacks valid jurisdiction ... issues involved the ld. PCIT had wrongly set aside the assessment order dated 25.11.2019. Therefore, it was nothing but a case of change of opinion and suspicion, hence, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 is not permissible. 3. Binding judicial guideline: It cannot be disputed that the AO was bound

DCIT, CC-15, New Delhi vs. Bdr Builders & Developers P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1177/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Bdr Builders & Developers P. Ltd,B- Central Circle-15, 393, Zakir Nagar So, South East Delhi, New Delhi New Delhi-1100025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

quashing the order by holding that the reason for reopening the case u/s 148 of the IT Act are either based on change of opinion or reason to suspect. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition ... Madan prop. Rhea Distribution Company, have all been examined in the assessment u/s 143(3) of M/s GBPL in 2015. (v) There is change of opinion of the AO, which is not valid ground for reopening u/s 148. (vi) The fact that Sh. Manoj Sethi and Sh. Roop Kishore Madan

Diya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 7(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated herein above

ITA 1929/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Diya Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 1373, Rani Bagh, Shakur Ward-7(3), Basti, Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccd3991L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

evidence has been passed on to the AO by Inv. Wing and reassessment having been done on new facts does not amount to change of opinion. The main proposition made by the Hon'ble Court was that crucial factual aspects which are relevant to the reopening of the assessment cannot

M/S Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

separately determined MAT liability after completing the assessment. Thus, the issue now that the PCIT is raising is nothing but a change of opinion and thereby PCIT is reviewing the order of the assessing officer and the law does not permit the review of 23 M/S Jaipur Telecom

Ekta Adnani, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1) Intl Taxation, New Delhi., Delhi

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

ITA 902/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sahil Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

raised in ACIT vs. Marico Ltd., 117 Taxmann.com 244 (SC) the Re- assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed, on the principle of change of opinion. (ii) Ground No. 2: That the section under which assessment order is passed by learned AO is bad in the eyes

Nirmalaben Jaswantsinh Rathod, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-5, Vapi

In the result, the original grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/SRT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

during the assessment or in remand proceeding. So far as penalty under section 271(1)(c) is concerned, there is no question of change of opinion as argued by the ld. AR of the assessee, rather it is a clear case of concealment of income. 10. I have heard

Nirmalaben Jaswantsinh Rathod, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-5, Vapi

In the result, the original grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 131/SRT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

during the assessment or in remand proceeding. So far as penalty under section 271(1)(c) is concerned, there is no question of change of opinion as argued by the ld. AR of the assessee, rather it is a clear case of concealment of income. 10. I have heard

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Vimal Chand Surana(HUF), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 62/JPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 150(2)Section 153CSection 2Section 250Section 69

accepted by the AO then the AO is not permitted to reopen the assessment to review its order as it would amount to change of opinion. The Hon’ble Madras High court in case of CIT vs. Remedies Ltd. (Supra) has held in paras 10 to 12 as under ... Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)., wherein the Supreme Court held that the concept of "change of opinion" on the part of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment did not stand obliterated after the substitution of Section 147 of the Income

Shri Madho Lal Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 238/JPR/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 54BSection 54FSection 69

accepted by the AO then the AO is not permitted to reopen the assessment to review its order as it would amount to change of opinion. The Hon’ble Madras High court in case of CIT vs. Remedies Ltd. (Supra) has held in paras 10 to 12 as under ... Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)., wherein the Supreme Court held that the concept of "change of opinion" on the part of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment did not stand obliterated after the substitution of Section 147 of the Income

Edathuruthykaran Pavoo George, Ernakulam vs. The Acitcircle-1, Kochi

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

ITA 25/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Edathuruthykaran Pavoo George Vs Acit, Circle - 1(1) 40/2102, Market Road Kochi Ernakulam 682035 Pan – Abzpg4486E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Athira Anil, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.11.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual, Who Is Running A Proprietary Concern In The Name Of M/S. Novelty Textiles. The Proprietary Concern Is A Wholesale Dealer In Textile Products. For Ay 2009-10 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,83,44,875/-. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 26.12.2011 By Assessing The Total Income At Rs.2,89,52,150/-. Subsequently Notice Was Issued

For Appellant: Smt. Athira Anil, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

assessment year, i.e. AY 2010-11 on identical facts has quashed the reassessment order by stating that the same was initiated on mere change of opinion. 5. The learned D.R. was unable to controvert the submissions made by the learned A.R. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused ... assessment had verified the said expenditure and allowed the same as an allowable deduction. Therefore, the reassessment was initiated only on a mere change of opinion. On identical facts, the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 126/Coch.2021 (order dated 27.12.2022) had quashed

Shrimati. Lata Narang, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Deepak Mittal [2010] 324 ITR411 (P&H) has held that "Change of opinion by reappraising the evidence is not within the para-meters of provisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ” Lack ... order was passed by the Id. AO. It cannot be said that the issue was untouched and unverified by the assessing authority. Mere change of opinion an order cannot be called as erroneous. We directed that the order passed by the PCIT is unjust for, and the order is setting

Shreenathji Infrastructure P.Ltd., Pipariya vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Itarsi

ITA 314/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 80Section 80I

concluding that the reopening is legally valid, correct and justified. It is humbly submitted that the reopening of assessment was based on mere change of opinion by the Ld. AO. The proceedings u/s 147 was initiated without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant has escaped assessment ... concluding that the reopening is legally valid, correct and justified. It is humbly submitted that the reopening of assessment was based on mere change of opinion by the Ld. AO. The proceedings u/s 147 was initiated without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant has escaped assessment

Shreenathji Infrastructure P.Ltd., Pipariya vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Itarsi

ITA 313/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 80Section 80I

concluding that the reopening is legally valid, correct and justified. It is humbly submitted that the reopening of assessment was based on mere change of opinion by the Ld. AO. The proceedings u/s 147 was initiated without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant has escaped assessment ... concluding that the reopening is legally valid, correct and justified. It is humbly submitted that the reopening of assessment was based on mere change of opinion by the Ld. AO. The proceedings u/s 147 was initiated without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant has escaped assessment

Shreenathji Infrastructure P.Ltd., Pipariya vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Itarsi

ITA 312/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 80Section 80I

concluding that the reopening is legally valid, correct and justified. It is humbly submitted that the reopening of assessment was based on mere change of opinion by the Ld. AO. The proceedings u/s 147 was initiated without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant has escaped assessment ... concluding that the reopening is legally valid, correct and justified. It is humbly submitted that the reopening of assessment was based on mere change of opinion by the Ld. AO. The proceedings u/s 147 was initiated without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant has escaped assessment

Shreenathji Infrastructure P.Ltd., Pipariya vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Itarsi

ITA 311/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 80Section 80I

concluding that the reopening is legally valid, correct and justified. It is humbly submitted that the reopening of assessment was based on mere change of opinion by the Ld. AO. The proceedings u/s 147 was initiated without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant has escaped assessment ... concluding that the reopening is legally valid, correct and justified. It is humbly submitted that the reopening of assessment was based on mere change of opinion by the Ld. AO. The proceedings u/s 147 was initiated without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant has escaped assessment

Shreenathji Infrastructure P.Ltd., Pipariya vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Itarsi

ITA 310/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 80Section 80I

concluding that the reopening is legally valid, correct and justified. It is humbly submitted that the reopening of assessment was based on mere change of opinion by the Ld. AO. The proceedings u/s 147 was initiated without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant has escaped assessment ... concluding that the reopening is legally valid, correct and justified. It is humbly submitted that the reopening of assessment was based on mere change of opinion by the Ld. AO. The proceedings u/s 147 was initiated without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant has escaped assessment

Sri.John Mathew N, Alappuzha vs. The ITO, WD-2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri John Mathew N. The Income Tax Officer Neroth House Ward - 2, Alleppey Vs. No. 1, Jubilee Road Alappuzha [Pan: Acupm8885D] Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair & Shri P.K. Biju, Advocates Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Appeal By The Assessee Challenges The Validity Of The Reassessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 20.11.2007 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2001-02, Since Upheld In First Appeal Vide Order Dated 24.01.2018 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kottayam (‘Cit(A)’ For Short). 2.1 At The Outset, Shri Anil D. Nair, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee-Appellant, Would Submit That The Basis Of The Assessee’S Challenge Is Two-Fold: (A) Non-Supply Of The Reasons Recorded; & (B) True & Full Disclosure Of All Material Facts Relating To The Income Escaping Assessment By The Assessee Per His Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair &For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 230ASection 234B

covering every aspect of the case as contested by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), viz. (a) delay beyond 4 years; (b) change of opinion; (c) reasons for reopening; (d) land being agricultural land (and, thus, a capital asset or not); (e) computation of capital gain; and (f) interest

Radha Govind Public Welfare Society, Ramgarh vs. CIT(Exemption), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/PAT/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

examination and accepted in the assessment proceeding. Ld. Counsel strongly submitted that the revisionary proceedings initiated by the Ld. CIT tantamount to change of opinion which is contrary to the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 4.2. Ld. Counsel also submitted that Ld. CIT has conducted the revisionary proceeding

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1) (3), Rajkot vs. M/S. Tirupati Agencies, Rajkot

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 365/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 To 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12) Income-Tax Officer M/S. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacft0834H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: All Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Rajkot (The Cit(A)), Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders All Dated 29.03.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot Under Section

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 153Section 153A

believe' failing which, Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessments on the basis of 'mere change of opinion' which cannot be per se reason to reopen. The conceptual difference between the power to review and power to reassess is to be kept ... power to review; But reassessment has to be based on the fulfillment of certain pre conditions and if the concept of 'change of opinion' is removed, in the barb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of 'change of opinion as an in-built