← 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

Children Welfare Trust (Regd), Faridabad vs. CIT Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3637/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 3637/Del/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Children Welfare Trust (Regd) Vs National Faceless C/O. Gita Balniketan Senior Assessment Centre, Secondary School, 3-E, Nit, Delhi (Nafac) Faridabad Delhi Pan: Aabtc6957B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv, Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Sh. Mirza, Ca & Shri Sarthakkh Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025

Section 11(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

whether the inquiry was insufficient or not, could not have been the subject matter of revisional proceedings as it would amount to mere change of opinion." Children Welfare Trust Vs. CIT(E) 19. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. PCIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh information. Page ... Section 148 in respect of the assessment year 1992-93 to 1994-95 appear to have been issued only on the basis of mere change of opinion and are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 37. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh information. Page ... Section 148 in respect of the assessment year 1992-93 to 1994-95 appear to have been issued only on the basis of mere change of opinion and are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 37. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Bharat Spun Pipe and Construction Company, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 360/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, (CIT) (V.C.)
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153C

legality of the order passed is challenged on various grounds which for the sake of convenience are listed below: S. No. Grounds 1. Mere change of opinion as order u/s 143(3) already passed. 2. Order passed u/s 147 instead of 153C 3. Order passed by JAO instead ... Ahmedabad, that too on the basis of search conducted in the case of a third party reopening was made. Thus, reopening amounts to mere change of opinion. It is further submitted that the information as stated to have been supplied from the ACIT Central Circle – 2(1), Ahmedabad could

Bheru Lal Kumawat, Vill Kulthana vs. ITO Pratapgarh, Pratapgarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1288/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

under appeal alleging Rs. 7,26,969/- as income from undisclosed sources on the basis or assumptions and presumptions is nothing but a mere change of opinion and thus, deserves to be deleted. Without prejudice to above, it is submitted that cash worth Rs. 31,00,200/- deposited by assessee

Abdulwahid Abdulkarim Qureshi, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 894/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 147Section 250

were also initiated under the amended Act u/s.148A of the Act which were dropped by the authorities by observing that it is a mere change of opinion since the reassessment has already been done as a consequence of proceedings initiated u/s.148 of the Act vie notice dated 31.03.2021. This being

Abdulwahid Abdulkarim Qureshi, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 893/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 147Section 250

were also initiated under the amended Act u/s.148A of the Act which were dropped by the authorities by observing that it is a mere change of opinion since the reassessment has already been done as a consequence of proceedings initiated u/s.148 of the Act vie notice dated 31.03.2021. This being

Jay Prabhudas Vithalani, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee (ITA No

ITA 75/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjunlal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 75/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Jay Prabhudas Vithlani 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Gujarat-361008 Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway Gujarat-361001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv0266A (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.74/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2021-22) Khushaboo Jaykumar Vithlani 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Gujarat-361008 Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Lal Wadi Main Road, Kaushal Nagar, Gujarat - 361110 स्थायी लेखासं . / जी आइआरसं . / Pan/Gir.: Aefpv6723A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 19/06/2025 : 05/08/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) – 2021-22, Are Directed Against The Separate Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [(In Short "Ld. Pr.Cit”] U/S. 263 Of The Act, Both Orders Dated 24.01.2025. 2. Since, These Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessee For Same

Section 263

held that, "Reopening of assessment on the same ground in the absence of any tangible material was based on mere change of opinion and therefore is not sustainable." Hence, based on the above-mentioned judicial pronouncements, in the absence of any specific evidence, the revisionary proceedings-initiated

Khushboo Jaykumar Vithlani, Jamnagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee (ITA No

ITA 74/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjunlal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 75/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Jay Prabhudasvithlani Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Income Tax, Gujarat – 361008 Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway Gujarat – 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv0266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 263

held that, "Reopening of assessment on the same ground in the absence of any tangible material was based on mere change of opinion and therefore is not sustainable." Hence, based on the above-mentioned judicial pronouncements, in the absence of any specific evidence, the revisionary proceedings-initiated

Holy Spirit Educational Society Convent of Holy Spirit, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer(Exemptions) Ward-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 965/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri A. Shankar, Sr
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(i)Section 144B(1)(iii)Section 147Section 148

under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act is bad in law as the entire re-assessment proceedings are on account of a mere change of opinion which is impermissible in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the notice ... would not be correct. The assessee also raised a ground that the reopening is not based on any fresh material and therefore on mere change of opinion, the assessment cannot be reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) not accepted the contention of the assessee and observed that

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Capital Limited (Successor to Tata Cleantech Capital Limited), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3456/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80Section 80I

some new tangible material on record which has come to the notice of Ld. Assessing Officer. Reopening should not be on account of ‘mere change of opinion’. It was submitted that provisions of section 147 does not grant power to the Assessing Officer to suo moto review his own order

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

ITA 1252/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 115JSection 135Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

examined the claim of deduction under chapter VIA during the course of assessment and therefore it cannot be re-examined u/s 263 on mere change of opinion is not tenable. It can be seen from the records that the AO had called for certain details vide notice

Sunil Uttam Kakade, Pune vs. ITO Ward 4(3) Pune, Pune

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2251/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2251/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Uttam Kakade, V The Income Tax Officer, Roopm No.7, Bldg. No.4, S. Ward-8(3), Pune. Ashok Nagar Pimpri, Kalewadi B.O, Pune – 411017. Maharashtra. Pan: Aospk4472L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.10.2023 For A.Y.2017-18, Emanating From The Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 29.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(2)Section 144(1)(b)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

accounts. ITO, Ward-8(5), Pune after considering the submission dropped the proceedings. Therefore, the subsequent notice u/s.148 dated 30.03.2021 is based on mere change of opinion, rather the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind while issuing the said notice dated 30.03.2021, as nowhere the Assessing Officer has referred

Sterling Infrastructure Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, Delhi

ITA 3982/DEL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Years: 2014-15 Sterling Infrastructure Private Vs Acit, Limited, Central Circle-15, 20A, Rajpur Road, Delhi. Civil Lines, Delhi – 110 054. Pan: Aakcs7108Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Advocate & Shri Jaspal Singh Sethi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 196

facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Ld. AR has submitted that in the present case, reassessment proceedings initiated is clearly based on mere change of opinion, which is not permissible in law. The appellant had fully and truly disclosed all the material facts necessary for assessment of income

Patel Infrastructure Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT (Central), Surat, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 787/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

Officer failed to verify the genuineness or eligibility of the section 80G claim is not coming from the facts and amounts to a mere change of opinion by the PCIT, which is impermissible in law under section 263 of the Act. With regards to the second issue regarding the expected

M/S.Mahogany Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

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

ITA 1631/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36Section 37Section 40

argument against the initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 that the claim for depreciation has been considered and hence cannot be disallowed on mere change of opinion was rejected because there was no conscious consideration of the materials which were on record. As already stated earlier, no material was placed

Sylvan Greens Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Bhala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 801C

these facts, or a re- evaluation of them, was erroneous and led to an incorrect conclusion regarding the nature of the receipt. Mere Change of opinion cannot be the basis to reopen the assessment under section 148 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also decided in the, case ... amount to full an opinion that subsidy was disclosure if primary facts are capital. Reopening based on "hidden or immersed" and require mere change of opinion is "detailed exercise and deep impermissible. study." It is observed that mere change of opinion cannot be the basis for reopening the assessment

Strata Geosystems (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

ITA 2447/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Strata Geosystems (India) P. Ltd. Pcit Plot No. A-15/16, Sabnam 6Th Floor House, Central Cross Road B Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Midc, Andheri East M.K. Road Mumbai-400 093. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaics3717K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 135Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80G

misplaced, as that case dealt with reopening under Section 147, where reassessment was quashed due to absence of fresh material and being a mere change of opinion. In contrast, the present case involves revision under Section 263, where the assessment order was passed without proper inquiry into the allowability

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 815/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Calcutta High Court in Reckitt Colman of India Ltd. vs. ACIT (2001) 252 ITR 550 (Cal). There is a distinction between a mere change of opinion and a change of opinion based on fresh facts. The latter would imply that the earlier conclusions of the AO were misled by placing

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Calcutta High Court in Reckitt Colman of India Ltd. vs. ACIT (2001) 252 ITR 550 (Cal). There is a distinction between a mere change of opinion and a change of opinion based on fresh facts. The latter would imply that the earlier conclusions of the AO were misled by placing