← 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

Konda Srinivasa Reddy, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

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

ITA 209/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

Reena Verma, Haridwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(5), Roorkee

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stand dismissed

ITA 2214/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2214/Del/2018, A.Y. 2009-10 Reena Verma Income Tax Officer, C/O Shri Pawana Singh Ward 1(3)(5), Roorkee Khedi Kala, Mubaraqpur Vs. Laksar, Haridwar, Uttaranchal Pan: Agvpv0526B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/05/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter, The ‘Ay’) 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun [Hereinafter, The ‘Cit(A)’].

Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69h

this assessment were never critically looked at in the return. Therefore, it cannot be said that issuing of notice u/s 147 was mere change of opinion. More so, when the return originally claimed to have been filed by the assessee was not even processed u/s 143(3). Therefore, this ground

Dynamic Powertech Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle 4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 154Section 250

assessment year i.e. AY 2022-23 and disallowing the claim in the year under consideration is not in accordance of law and a mere change of opinion. In light of the above facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully submitted that the actions of the CPC and the confirmation

Akshay Kumar Rungta, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), International Taxation

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

enunciated in Kalyanji Maviji's case [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC). Proposition (2) may be briefly summarised as permitting action even on a 'mere change of opinion'. This is what has been doubted in the Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society case 2 Taxman 197/119 ITR 996 (SC) and we shall ... No.66/Bang/2024 Page 17 of 31 case 2 Taxman 197/119 ITR 996 (SC), it also ropes in cases of a 'bare or mere change of opinion' where the Income-tax Officer (very often a successor officer) attempts to reopen the assessment because the opinion formed earlier by himself (or, more often

Shri Navinchandra N. Patel, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 869/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dzouza, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(2)Section 69

case. Reassessment proceedings, initiated beyond a period of four Shri Navinchandra N Patel Vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 13– years and mere change of opinion on the same set of facts, cannot be sustained. The assessee in the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act has furnished ... land and the said fact also mentioned in the Trading & Profit & Loss Account of the Audited Books of Accounts. The reasons are mere change of opinion and the assessee can be found to have made true and fair disclosure of facts and furnished the details in the original assessment proceedings

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(1), Kolkata vs. Sendoz Commercials Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 28/KOL/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.28/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata ………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Sendoz Commercials Pvt. Ltd…………..……...........……........……...…..…..Respondent 644, Marshall House, 25, Strand Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aagcs5174E] C.O. No.12/Kol/2025 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.28/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sendoz Commercials Pvt. Ltd …………..………….………………..….…..Cross-Objector 644, Marshall House, 25, Strand Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aagcs5174E] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata.............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tulsyan, Fca & Deepak Mudhra, Aca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 30, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal & The Assessee Has Filed The Corresponding Cross-Objection Against The Same Order Dated 27.08.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 37 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Revenue Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case.

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The ld. AR argued that the reopening was based on mere change of opinion which is impermissible under the law, therefore, the appeal of the revenue may be dismissed on this ground alone. He also stated that

J Ray Mcdermott Engineering Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2016/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

since in the original assessment, the assessee had furnished all the relevant details and reassessment completed by the present AO is only on mere change of opinion. The CIT(A) however rejected the arguments of the assessee and dismissed the grounds of assessee both on merits as well on legal ... Calcutta) 4.2 As regards to legal contention, the Ld.AR submitted that reopening of assessment is bad in law since it is on a mere change of opinion. It was submitted during the course of original scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act, the assessee company had duly furnished sufficient

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3705/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 801B(9)

consciously dealt with by the AO. Therefore, in the absence of any fresh tangible material, the reassessment was held to be a mere‘ change of opinion‘. The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced as under: The issue regarding inclusion of additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia), in computation

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2836/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

valid ‘reason to believe’ that income has escaped assessment; ii. Initiation of reassessment proceedings for AY 2014-15 is based on mere change of opinion; iii. Lack of analysis during assessment cannot justify reassessment under Section 147 iv. Assessment made after making detailed enquiries – Reassessment cannot be made ... words 'reason to believe', failing which section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of 'mere change of opinion', which cannot be per se reason to reopen. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 2835/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2613 & 2732/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2835, 2836 & 2820/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company V. Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain Ca & Mr. Kunal Shah, Ca & Ms. Aashna Dhila, Ca : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 :-2-:

For Respondent: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CA
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी'न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्रीएबीटीवर्की, न्यायिकसदस्यएवंश्रीएस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखासदस्यकेसमक्ष

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2820/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

valid ‘reason to believe’ that income has escaped assessment; ii. Initiation of reassessment proceedings for AY 2014-15 is based on mere change of opinion; iii. Lack of analysis during assessment cannot justify reassessment under Section 147 iv. Assessment made after making detailed enquiries – Reassessment cannot be made ... words 'reason to believe', failing which section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of 'mere change of opinion', which cannot be per se reason to reopen. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power

Cholamandalam Investment and Fianance Co. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2732/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2613 & 2732/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2835, 2836 & 2820/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company V. Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain Ca & Mr. Kunal Shah, Ca & Ms. Aashna Dhila, Ca : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 :-2-:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी'न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्रीएबीटीवर्की, न्यायिकसदस्यएवंश्रीएस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखासदस्यकेसमक्ष

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai, Tamil Nadu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (DCIT), Chennai-1, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

ITA 2613/CHNY/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2613 & 2732/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2835, 2836 & 2820/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company V. Limited, Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain Ca & Mr. Kunal Shah, Ca & Ms. Aashna Dhila, Ca Department By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 :-2-:

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्रीएबीटीवर्की, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incomet Tax. Circle- Ltu -2, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1678/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C NareshFor Respondent: ShriKrishna Kumar SR. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 90

opined that the amendments introduced into section 147 with effect from 1-4-1989 have not altered the position that a mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer was not sufficient ground for embarking on reassessment. The Full Bench further observed that an order of assessment must be presumed ... held that by reason of section 147 if the ITO exercises its jurisdiction for initiating a proceeding for reassessment only upon mere change of opinion, the same may be held to be unconstitutional. We are, therefore, of the opinion that section 147 does not postulate conferment of power upon

M/S Agra Products Pvt.Ltd., Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. Deputy C.I.T Circle -2(1)(1), Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 121/AGR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.121/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Agra Products Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-2(1)(1), बनाम/ Plot No. 99, Phase-Ii, Nsez, Noida, Agra Vs. Gautum Bhuddha Nagar, U.P. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadca-3621-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Pankaj Gargh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

initiated on audit objection without there being any fresh or tangible material on record. This being the case, reopening would be nothing but mere change of opinion on existing material which is impermissible as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (187 Taxman

Innocent Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 12(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1236/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 243(3)Section 250Section 254(1)

holding that the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was bad in law as it was based on mere change of opinion because all relevant details relating to the impugned unsecured loan were available with the Ld. A.O. at the time of the original scrutiny assessment proceedings

Hariram Hospital, Alwar vs. PCIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

erroneous in law nor caused any prejudice to the interest of revenue. (b) That the invocation of Section 263 is based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible under the law. The AO had conducted enquiries, examined the facts and formed a plausible view and the ld. PCIT ... Section 263 of the Act without satisfying the twin mandatory conditions of the provision and in doing so has erroneously acted upon a mere change of opinion, relied on materials beyond 19 HARIRAM HOSPITAL, ALWAR VS PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR the assessment record, failed to conduct an independent inquiry or demonstrate

Indo Pacific Finlease Ltd, Chandigarh vs. PCIT- Chandigarh 1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the

ITA 449/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrilaliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं . / I.T.A. Nos.448 & 449/Chd/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Rohit Sharma, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 203(1)Section 263

officer the 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

Indo Pacific Finlease Ltd, Chandigarh vs. PCIT Chandigarh 1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the

ITA 448/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrilaliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं . / I.T.A. Nos.448 & 449/Chd/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Vs Pcitchandigarh 1, Chandigarh Indo Pacific Finlease Ltd., Sco-98-99, Sector 34 Sub City Centre, Chandigarh 160002 स्थायीलेखासं./Panno. Aaaci2176E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Ashok Goel, C.A. Revenue By : Sh.Rohit Sharma, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing :19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement ;16/04/2025 Physical Hearing Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.: Both The Appeals Are Being Filed By The Assessee, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 Dated 28.03.2024& 23.03.2024 U/S 263 For The Assessment Years: 2014-15& 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Common Grounds Of Appeal In Ita Nos.448 & 449/Chd/2024 As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Rohit Sharma, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 203(1)Section 263

officer the 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

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Del;Hi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated on a mere change of opinion without formation of reasonable belief regarding escapement of income, which is sine-qua-non for assumption of valid jurisdiction 3.2. That the CIT(A) erred ... allowed. 10. In ground of appeal No. 3 to 3.4, assessee has challenged the order u/s 147 / 143(3) as passed without jurisdiction, mere change of opinion and barred by limitation thus bad in law and void-ab- initio. 11. Before us, the ld. AR argued that the assessment