← All Phrases

“mere change of opinion”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 147952 judgments

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

Leading authorities on mere 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.

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.

CIT v. Usha International Ltd.
348 ITR 485 · 2012 · High Court
231
citing judgments

A reassessment is invalid due to 'mere change of opinion' if an issue was raised during original assessment but no addition was made, implying the issue was examined. However, if a subject matter was not examined and no opinion was formed, the principle of 'change of opinion' does not apply.

Judgments citing mere change of opinion

Shardindu Prasad Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna

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

ITA 630/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

annulled ab-initio. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in invoking section 147 in the case of the appellant on mere change of opinion. 3. The approval/sanction for reopening assessment by the competent authority is stated mechanically and without application of mind in the assessment order. I.T.A. No.: 630/PAT/2024 Assessment

L.H Sugar Factories Ltd., Pilibhit vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 194/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

reasons recorded were already considered and adjudicated during the assessment proceedings u/s 143 (3) of the Act and reasons recorded are mere change of opinion. b. Because the reason to believe recorded by the learned AO are not the view of the AO himself but based on the view

Ucal Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-3, Chennai

ITA 1018/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

that notice dated 28 March 2013 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen assessment for A.Y. 2008-09 is based on mere change of opinion. However, according to Mr. Chhotaray, learned Counsel for the revenue the aforesaid issue now raised has not been considered earlier as the same

DCIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi vs. Praveen Kumar Jolly, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in No

ITA 1654/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Praveen Kumar Jolly, Central Circle-06, 39/1, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi-110008. Pan-Aagpj0144C Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment has been reopened by the AO on the basis of the reasons which are mere change of opinion as the issue was already examined during the course of assessment under Section 147/143(3) of the Act. 11. The respondent craves leave

Santosh Rathore, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore - 1, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 451/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 712/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Jalandhar, Civil Lines vs. Sh. Barjesh Singhal, Modern Colony

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 363/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Written submission)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

allow the appeal of the assessee and quashed the assessment u/s 147 by holding that the proceedings initiated for reopening of assessment on mere change of opinion is not correct because the AO has opened the case u/s 147 within the time period and AO have reasons to believe that ... case of CIT (vs) Kelvinator India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), wherein, it was held that, the re-opening of the assessment on mere change of opinion is not permissible subsequent to the amendment made to Section 147 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.1989. Accordingly. the re-opening of the assessment

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power

Balajee Infratech & Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2261/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)

that the Assessing Officer, after due verification, had accepted the genuineness of the payment. The reopening, it was urged, was a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. In support, the assessee furnished a comprehensive set of documents demonstrating the legality and genuineness of the transaction. The relevant

Zahir Hussain, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Cir-9(5), Chennai

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

ITA 52/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Chny/2019 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Abitha Banu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar
Section 143(3)Section 68

further submitted that the assessee’s accounts were duly audited, and Form 3CEB was furnished. Hence, the reopening of assessment amounts to a mere change of opinion. The Ld. AR relied upon various case laws that reopening u/s 148 of the Act is not permissible merely by change of opinion

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Penamaluru

ITA 278/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Ward-2(3), Penamaluru. Vijayawada. Pan: Aojpm4884K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 69

erred in dismissing the ground wherein, the contest was notice issued U/s. 148 dated 31/03/2021 is a result of a mere change of opinion by the AO, when the original assessment U/s. 143(3) was completed after due scrutiny and all relevant material facts were disclosed by the assessee ... furnished with the AO the requisite details, therefore, it was clearly a case of reopening of the concluded assessment based on a mere “change of opinion’, which is not permissible as per the mandate of law. 15. The Ld. AR to buttress his contention that the case of the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Churchgate vs. M/S Nnm Securities Pvt. Ltd., Fort

ITA 1207/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Ito-4(2)(1) M/S. Nnm Securities P. Ltd. Room No. 644 1111 Stock Exchange Tower Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Dalal Street, Fort M.K. Road Mumbai-400 023. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaacn8070G Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 154/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year : 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya

objection raised by “Internal Audit Party”. As the issue involved was already dealt by earlier AO, reopening on the same issue amounts to mere change of opinion, and the same is not permitted as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kawatra Tent and Caterers Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 2734/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. D. S. Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153A

material had come on record or no new information had been received, it had to be held that this was a case of mere change of opinion which did not provide jurisdiction to Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings under section 147 and. hence, notices issued under section 148 were

Professional Artist Cosmetics LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3799/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

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

also possible. As held by the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., the jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be exercised for a mere change of opinion. The Bombay High Court in Gabriel India Ltd. further clarified that where an AO has conducted inquiries and taken a view, the order

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1640/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

held that in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ideal Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1450/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

held that in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ideal Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1449/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

held that in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ideal Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT