“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

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

ITA 809/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

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

Nazar Impex Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(3), Surat (Current Jurisdiction), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1212/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1212/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Nazar Impex Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat, Aaykar Vs. Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395 003 Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccn3603R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’), Dated 26.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 30.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeals Are As Under: “1. Ground 6. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Rejection Of Books Of Account Under Section 145(3) Of Income Tax, Act 1961 Without Pointing Out Any Defect In Books Of Account & Even The Return Income On The Basis Of Books Of Account Were Also Not Disputed.

Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 250

conclusion that there is escapement of income and the reasons must have a live link with the formation of belief. Reopening based on mere change of opinion lacks validity and the notice u/s 148 cannot be sustained. In the present case, the information was already there when the original order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tmf Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 2983/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrideputy Commissioner Of Vs Tmf Holdings Limited 14, 4Th Floor, Sir H C Dinshaw Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai Building, 16, Horniman Circle, Fort, Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai-400 001 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aacct4644A 400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

proceedings is bad in law, Ground no.4. The Ld AO erred in re-opening the assessment proceedings for the captioned AY basis a mere change of opinion and basis the same material which was submitted and examined during the original assessment proceedings and therefore the present reopening proceedings ... such fresh material, the reassessment proceedings would be invalid. 8.4.3. The appellant had further contended that the reopening is based on the mere change in opinion, which is not permissible and hence reopening is invalid. The appellant has also raised the contention that during the course of original assessment proceedings

Tharmaraj Gopi, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.682/Chny/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Tharmaraj Gopi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, Bharathidasan 1St Street, Non-Corp Ward-8(2), Kandasamy Nagar, Chennai. Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056. [Pan: Akqpg3889D]

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)

held 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. It is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to prove that there was a failure to disclose material facts necessary for the assessment

Ability Services Private Limited, Sakchi vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/RAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.20/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ability Services Pvt. Ltd…….....................…...........................……….……Appellant 232 Kumhar Para, New Baradwari Sakchi, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aacce1395H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 09, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 18.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Contract & Transportation & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.81,52,900/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Was Framed On A Total Assessed Income Of Rs.84,49,220/-. Subsequnetly, Proceedings U/S 148 Were Initiated Vide Notice Dated 30.03.2021 & Assessment Was Completed On 20.03.2022 Wherein The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Excess Depreciation Of Rs.36,64,657/- & Payment Of Epf/Esi Beyond The Due Date But Prior To Filing Of Return Of Rs.5,31,940/-

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Supreme Court as in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1, where it was held that mere change of opinion or vague assumption of the Assessing Officer is not a valid ground for reopening completed assessment, it must be based on failure

Tremendous Mining and Minerals Pvt Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 157/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Tremendous Mining & Vs Dcit, Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3, Cabin No.-1, 1205, New Delhi. 89-Hemkunth Chamber, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019. Pan: Aacct8840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwini Kumar, Ca & Shri Ankur Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.01.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-23/10303/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 24.12.2019 Passed U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Central Circle- 3, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Ashwini Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

consequence except where the reopening is being challenged on the basis that it is a case of mere change of opinion. Thus, the additional ground as raised has no substance. The same is decided against the assessee. 6. Then, coming to main grounds involving issue on merits