← 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

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3514/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 115JSection 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 37(1)

under:- I.T.A. No. 3514/Mum/2024 6 6.2. On perusal of the aforementioned facts, it is clear that the re- assessment proceedings, is nothing but mere change of opinion where action of the AO is to relook at the very same facts available at the time of original assessment proceedings. This

Ratna Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 132/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

assessment order was passed, it was not open for revenue to reopen assessment on same issue and, thus, impugned reassessment proceedings initiated on mere change of opinion was 21 to be set aside. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the reopening of the assessment on this issue ... 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

Samtel India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 22(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7101/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Cit, Samtel India Limited, Circle-22(1), 501, Copia Corporate Vs. New Delhi. Suites, District Centre Jasola, New Delhi-110025 Pan-Aaacs0390N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri D.C. Garg, Ca Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi (“The Cit(A)” For Short) In Appeal No.32/13-14 Dated 27/01/2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi, Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case In Upholding Action Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening The Assessment Under Samtel India Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 37

were duly considered at the time of completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and thus reopening is nothing but mere change of opinion. 9. During the course of hearing ld. A/R of the assessee submits that the assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) wherein ... therefore, now based on the Samtel India Ltd. vs. ACIT same material making allegation that certain income has escaped assessment is a mere change of opinion which cannot per se reason to reopen the concluded assessment. For this reliance is placed on the following: - CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Marico Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5574/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri B R Baskaran, Am Dcit, Range 9(2) M/S. Marico Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R. No. 218, Rang Sharda, K. C. Marg, 2Nd Floor, M. K. Road, Vs. Bandra Reclamation, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 050

For Appellant: Shri Milin BakhaiFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H Pande
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

inaccurate, untrue or false but the AO only doubted the correctness of the quantum of claim. It was a case of mere change of opinion based on same particulars of expenditure filed with the return or in course of the assessment proceedings. The appellant did not file inaccurate particulars

Satelite Trade Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 912/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

falling which, we are afraid, 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. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review

Tijaria Polypipes Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cirlce 4, Jaipur

ITA 616/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Commissioner of Income-tax as had been subject-matter of completed assessment proceedings. It was further held that principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessments would have no application where order of assessment does not address itself to aspect which is basis

Same Deutz Fahr Italia Spa, Italy vs. Assistant Commissioner, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 937/CHNY/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250o

937/Chny/2024 2.10 The CIT(A)further failed to appreciate that mere change of opinion cannot per se be the reason for re-opening under section 147 and erred in holding the action of re-opening the assessment by the Assessing Officer as valid. Without prejudice to the foregoing grounds ... ITAT, the assessee took various grounds. On reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the plea of the assessee is that mere change of opinion cannot per-se be the reason for reopening u/s 147 since there was no fresh material on record which merits such reopening. The assessee

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Macmillan Education India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2036/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 2036/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 66/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Macmillan Education India Corporate Ward -4(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. No.21, Patullos Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan:Aafcm-5564-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Mr. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit Department By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 147

assessment is not justified as there is no new material or new information which would warrant a re-opening of the assessment. Merely change in opinion on part of the Ld. AO e. The Ld. AO erred in not appreciating the fact that re-opening of assessment is a mere

Income Tax Officer, Kautaliya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Rajnish Bharti HUF, Darukhana

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

ITA 4378/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. C.V. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

issuing the impugned notice under s. 148. He had applied his mind for issuing the notice. It was not a case of mere change of opinion. iii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Multi screen Media (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Income Tax Officer 41(3)(3), Bkc vs. Rajnish Bharti HUF, Darukhana

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

ITA 4377/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. C.V. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

issuing the impugned notice under s. 148. He had applied his mind for issuing the notice. It was not a case of mere change of opinion. iii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Multi screen Media (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3912/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 183/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

Assessing Officer regarding the escapement of income of the assessee in the assessment year under consideration. Further that, it was a mere change of opinion as no new opinion/tangible material has come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer to form the belief that the income of the assessee

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 182/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

Assessing Officer regarding the escapement of income of the assessee in the assessment year under consideration. Further that, it was a mere change of opinion as no new opinion/tangible material has come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer to form the belief that the income of the assessee

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 181/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

Assessing Officer regarding the escapement of income of the assessee in the assessment year under consideration. Further that, it was a mere change of opinion as no new opinion/tangible material has come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer to form the belief that the income of the assessee

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 180/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

Assessing Officer regarding the escapement of income of the assessee in the assessment year under consideration. Further that, it was a mere change of opinion as no new opinion/tangible material has come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer to form the belief that the income of the assessee

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 179/PAT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

Assessing Officer regarding the escapement of income of the assessee in the assessment year under consideration. Further that, it was a mere change of opinion as no new opinion/tangible material has come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer to form the belief that the income of the assessee

DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun vs. R.B. Enterprises, Dehradun

ITA 4/DDN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A(1)(b)

erred in law and in facts of this case holding that the notice u/s 148 is based on mere change of opinion without appreciating that once there was no explicit opinion recording in the assessment order itself, it could not be said that the A.O. had formed any opinion

M/S. R.B. Enterprises, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

ITA 3501/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A(1)(b)

erred in law and in facts of this case holding that the notice u/s 148 is based on mere change of opinion without appreciating that once there was no explicit opinion recording in the assessment order itself, it could not be said that the A.O. had formed any opinion

M/S. R.B. Enterprises, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

ITA 3500/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A(1)(b)

erred in law and in facts of this case holding that the notice u/s 148 is based on mere change of opinion without appreciating that once there was no explicit opinion recording in the assessment order itself, it could not be said that the A.O. had formed any opinion