← 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

The Dharmodayam Company, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 789/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 25

grounds of appeal challenging the very validity of reassessment proceedings. It is the contention of the appellant that reassessment proceedings were initiated on mere change of opinion, as evident from the assessment order itself as there was no reference to any fresh tangible material indicating escapement of income

The Dhamodayam Company, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 788/COCH/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 25

grounds of appeal challenging the very validity of reassessment proceedings. It is the contention of the appellant that reassessment proceedings were initiated on mere change of opinion, as evident from the assessment order itself as there was no reference to any fresh tangible material indicating escapement of income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 596/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

wherein only a minor NPA provision of Rs. 28,854 was considered. 8.2 The assessee’s contention that the reassessment amounts to a mere change of opinion is misplaced, as the issue was not examined in the original assessment proceedings. Furthermore, even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections

The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circleu��, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 595/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2017-18

wherein only a minor NPA provision of Rs.28,854 was considered. 8.2 The assessee's contention that the reassessment amounts to a mere change of opinion is misplaced, as the issue was not examined in the original assessment proceedings. Furthermore, even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 594/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

wherein only a minor NPA provision of Rs. 28,854 was considered. 8.2 The assessee’s contention that the reassessment amounts to a mere change of opinion is misplaced, as the issue was not examined in the original assessment proceedings. Furthermore, even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections

The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 593/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

wherein only a minor NPA provision of Rs. 28,854 was considered. 8.2 The assessee’s contention that the reassessment amounts to a mere change of opinion is misplaced, as the issue was not examined in the original assessment proceedings. Furthermore, even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections

The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 592/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

wherein only a minor NPA provision of Rs. 28,854 was considered. 8.2 The assessee’s contention that the reassessment amounts to a mere change of opinion is misplaced, as the issue was not examined in the original assessment proceedings. Furthermore, even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 591/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

wherein only a minor NPA provision of Rs. 28,854 was considered. 8.2 The assessee’s contention that the reassessment amounts to a mere change of opinion is misplaced, as the issue was not examined in the original assessment proceedings. Furthermore, even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections

The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 590/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

wherein only a minor NPA provision of Rs. 28,854 was considered. 8.2 The assessee’s contention that the reassessment amounts to a mere change of opinion is misplaced, as the issue was not examined in the original assessment proceedings. Furthermore, even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections

The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Circle, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 589/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

wherein only a minor NPA provision of Rs. 28,854 was considered. 8.2 The assessee’s contention that the reassessment amounts to a mere change of opinion is misplaced, as the issue was not examined in the original assessment proceedings. Furthermore, even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections

The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Circle, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

wherein only a minor NPA provision of Rs. 28,854 was considered. 8.2 The assessee’s contention that the reassessment amounts to a mere change of opinion is misplaced, as the issue was not examined in the original assessment proceedings. Furthermore, even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections

Neha Goel, Faridabad vs. PCIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 2624/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Neha Goel, Vs. Pcit, H. No. 585 Sector 15 Faridabad. Faridabad 121007. Pan No.Ahcpg6493Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 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

Balithal Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Tonk vs. Rjn-W-(107)(5), Tonk

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1306/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalbalithal Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Balithal Uniara Tonk, 304024 Pan No.: Aabab4614R ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Hemang Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234FSection 250Section 80P

inference which he should draw from the primary facts. If an ITO draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessment. The grounds or reasons which lead to the formation

Aksh Optifibre Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle - 2, Alwar

In the result, all the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Akul Agarwal, C.A. (thr. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 234ASection 250

erred in law as well as on facts in issuing notice u/s 148 on account of mere change of opinion as the assessment of the amalgamated company had already been completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant prays that the re-assessment order passed ... r.w.s.143(3) be quashed on account of proceedings being Initiated on mere change of opinion. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the appellant

DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Manish Uppal, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3061/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

words "reason to believe"..... 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 re-open. 6. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review

Eyegear Optics India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1347/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

believe that income has escaped assessment as required under section 147 of the Act. 8. Reassessing the income based on a mere change of opinion on the existing facts. Eyegear Optics India Private Limited ITA No.1347/Hyd/2024 & 1291/Hyd/2024 9. Holding that the alleged referral fees paid to Doctors is in violation

Hetal Pagare, ACIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat, Mulund West

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed in above terms

ITA 120/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit 16(2), Vs. Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat, Room No. 481, Aayakar Bhavan, 1901, Moksh Mahal Building, Mumbai-400 020 Maharashtra-400 080 Pan: Aabpr2061D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250

could have exercised powers to make addition but did not choose to do anything on such count, thus, action of reopening was merely change of opinion and was to be set aside. The hon'ble high court of Delhi, in the case of Usha International Ltd, reported ... assessee were duly accepted, therefore the reassessment u/s 148 of the Act was bad in law as the same was just a mere change of opinion. Ld. AR brought to our notice the legal paper book wherein the following decisions were relied upon in support of his arguments:- i) Siemens

Vijaya Lakshmi Ravula, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 218/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

fact 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

Swarajyam Dontireddy, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 217/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

fact 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

Veerareddy Gogula, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 216/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

fact 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