← 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

Sarena Private Limited, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Centre Delhi-3, Delhi

ITA 2479/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ambareesha Agrawal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

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

Popular Motorworld Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(5), Kochi

ITA 538/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neetu S, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

appraisal of facts already on record during the original assessment. The re-opening of the assessment is thus on a mere change of opinion, which Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to take note of and thus not followed the various Supreme Court decisions in this regard 3. Commissioner ... assessment proceedings on the ground that re- assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act have been initiated on the ground of mere change of opinion after examining the material which already formed part of the assessment record. Per contra, the stand taken by the Revenue is that the income

Madhuri Sunil Zode, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted

ITA 419/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Madhuri Sunil Zode, Ito, Ward 20(2)(1), Flat No. 8, 8Th Floor, Singers Wood, Piramal Chamber, 27Th Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaapz 1530 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Departmental Representative, however, opposed the condonation, contending that the assessee remained supine for over 500 days without any diligence. It was urged that mere change of opinion by another consultant cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning such inordinate delay, particularly when the assessee, as a prudent litigant, could have sought

Hemani Industires Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 2963/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2963/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Hemani Industries Limited C-701-703, 7Th Floor, Neelkanth Business Park, R.N Road, Vidyavihar (West) Mumbai-400 086 Pan : Aaach1117Q

For Appellant: Shri Malav P. Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 2 SCC 723, holding that a mere change of opinion cannot be a ground for reopening a concluded assessment. However, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's ruling did not address the merits

M/S. Aman Enterprises, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Aman Enterprises, D.C.I.T., 22, Park Street, Near Doranda College, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaifa 9921 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

failure of assessee to disclose any information or that he had not disclosed true and full material facts, it was a case of mere change of opinion and, thus, such reopening was not permissible. As such, in light of the above mentioned facts and case laws, we submit that

Viramgam Mahesana Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 119/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarviramgam Mahesana Project Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 17(1), E – 9, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Ndse Part 2, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan :Aabcv7027L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Order : 14.08.2025 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. Thisappeal Is Filed By The Assesseeagainst The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)]Dated 22.10.2014For Assessment Year 2006-07 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1 That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceedings, U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act & Also Failed To Appreciate That Neither The Mandatory Requirements Of Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act Nor The Pre-Conditions For Invoking The Provisions

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

adopt at the time of original assessment and reassessment, which is not permitted. In our view, revenue cannot reopen an assessment on a mere change of opinion, we observed that the various courts have held that the concept of ‘change of opinion’ must be treated as an in-built test

Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 3511/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 32A

accordance with mandate of law, the ld. AR raised multiple contentions, reads as under: “i. The reopening was based on mere change of opinion which is not permissible as per law. ii. The genesis of reopening was the same material available with the AO on assessment records ... truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for AY 2014-15." A. Reopening of assessment for the captioned AY, basis a mere change in opinion is not permissible and hence reopening is invalid and bad in law. 14. In this regard, the Appellant wishes to submit that deduction claimed

M/S. India Exposition Mart Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1079/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhshri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra, Accountnat Member Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Khanna, C. A./NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.S. Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

authority has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as it involved only a mere change of opinion.” This court in Praful Chunilal Patel Vs M. J. Makwana, Asstt. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 has observed in this behalf while interpreting ... this group of petitions. In cases where an error or mistake is detected, it can never be said that there is only a mere change of opinion The mistake or error which is detected and which constituted a valid decision or cause to form a belief in the first assessment

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 959/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

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

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 958/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

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

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 957/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

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

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 956/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

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

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

ITA 955/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Pcit (Central)-2, Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Pcit (Central)-2, Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore - 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pcit (Central)-2, Vs. Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) & Shri. S.Anatharaman, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin C.N, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2025 :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Subramaniam Mohan Sudaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 954/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

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

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 953/CHNY/2025[953]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

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

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 952/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

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

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 951/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

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

Geeta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2, Rohtak

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 3716/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singha.Yr. : 2016-17 Geeta Ito, Ward-2, Rohtak B-50, Lgf, South Extension-Ii, Vs. New Delhi – 49 (Pan: Aaypg9406A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

Bench of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 256 ITR 1, has held that mere change of opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen proceedings without anything further. It was held that if the Assessing Officer ... clear that 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. The above said decision was duly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Kelvinator of India

Sumit Suneja, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 34(1), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 3688/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singha.Yr. : 2011-12 Sumit Suneja, Vs. Acit, Circle 34(1), H-34, Pocket-17, Sector-3, Rithala, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi – 85 (Pan: Aaypg9406A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suregsh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

Bench of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 256 ITR 1, has held that mere change of opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen proceedings without anything further. It was held that if the Assessing Officer ... clear that 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. The above said decision was duly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Kelvinator of India

Daya Shanker Tiwari, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), I T Tower, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 827/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kannan, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., Kelvinator India Limited [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), wherein it has been clearly held that, “mere change of opinion, cannot be a ground for reopening of concluded assessment”. The Hon’ble Apex Court very categorically held that, “the conceptual difference between power