“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

Shree Sarvodaya Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Vadodara vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Jurisdiction the Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1349/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Viranch Modi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

much as the reopening of an assessment completed u/s.143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction and is based on a mere change of opinion. 1.02 Your appellant further submits that it had disclosed fully and truly all material facts relating to claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act during

Shree Sarvodaya Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Vadodara vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Jurisdiction the Dy. CIT, Cicle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1348/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Viranch Modi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Gold Ancher Exim Private Limited, Khar West - Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5464/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Panjabi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

first reopening notice was conducted. In the circumstances, the contention of the Petitioner that the impugned reopening notice is issued only on mere change of opinion will have to be accepted.” 9. Considering the facts of the case, in light of the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High

M/S. Larsen & Tourbro Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2) & 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1010/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of L&T House, Income Tax, N.M. Marg, Vs. Central Circle-5(4), Ballard Estate, Fort, [Erstwhile Income Tax Officer-2(2), Mumbai] Mumbai 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Pan : Aaacl0140P Nariman Point, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

live link with the formation of the belief.” The Hon‟ble Supreme Court also observed that the AO cannot reopen the assessment on mere change of opinion. The requirement of tangible material is also reiterated by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. NESCO

Mack Star Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4994/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Mr. Yash VarmaniFor Respondent: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147

failing 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 ... well settled and its omission from section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989, has again amended section 147 to reintroduce the expression `has reason to believe' in place

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Alcom Investment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 45

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

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), Mumbai

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

ITA 935/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

Section 1Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 147Section 153Section 80G

material on the basis of which the Income Tax Officer could proceed to reopen the case, it is not a case of mere change of opinion. We are not inclined to interfere with the decision of High Court merely because the case of the assessee was accepted as correct ... have jurisdiction to proceed with the re-assessment, as this would be purely in the realm of a review and/or on a mere change of opinion. If such course of action is recognized, it would lead to arbitrary consequences and result in multiple assessment orders being passed on the same

Shree Sai Baba Santhan Trust Mumbai, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 932/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

Section 1Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 147Section 153Section 80G

Mustasq Ahmad, Chennai vs. ITO, Intl Tax Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1351/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1351/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-2014. Mustaq Ahmad, The Income Tax Officer, No.160, Mustafa Centre, Vs. International Taxation, Usman Road, Ward 1(1) T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. Pan: Adepa 1181B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Lekha, C.A, ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Nilay Baran Som, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Chennai-16 [‘Cit(A)’ Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Five (5) Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Counsel For The Assessee Has Vehemently Pressed A Ground No.2 That There Was No Fresh Material On Which The Ao Has Issued Notice Dated 31.03.2021 U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ In Short). G.No.2 Is As Under: ‘’2. At The Outset, The Ao Has No Jurisdiction To Reopen The Assessment, As All The Material Facts Were With The Ao Even At The Time Of Completing The Original Assessment & There Was No Fresh Material On Which The Ao Has Issued Notice. The Notice Issued By The Ao U/S.148 Of The Act Is Ab Initio Void & On This Ground Alone The Reassessment Deserves To Be Cancelled’’.

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

failing 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 reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power ... well settled and its omission from section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Acct, 1989, has again amended Section 147 to reintroduce the expression 'has reason to believe' in place

Hewlett-Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 405/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri P.C. Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri A. Sreenivasa Rao, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 92C

merely based on the perusal of the records already available with the tax department and the reassessment seems to be based on mere change of opinion, which is not permissible under the law. 3.6 The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted ... there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and there seems to be mere change of opinion on the part of the AO and therefore, notice u/s 148 of the Act is unwarranted as the same may be held

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 3(4) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. The Shipping Corporation of India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed and that of the

ITA 1970/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Neha Vikam, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of reassessment proceedings, despite the same having been initiated on the basis of mere change of opinion, without any new tangible material/ information coming to the possession of the assessing officer subsequent to completion of assessment under section ... wrong. Sec. 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion. The relevant extract of the decision is reproduced below: "Though the power to reopen under the amended s.147 is much wider, one needs to give

The Shipping Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed and that of the

ITA 1752/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Neha Vikam, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

DCIT It 3 3 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Pramarica Aspf II Cyprus Holding Ltd, Ctprus

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3041/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Shri YogeshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 148

based on no new material and hence not maintainable. The assessee also contended that the 2nd round of reassessment is initiation is mere change of opinion based on the same records. The AO while disposing of the objections held that since the first round of reassessment proceeding have been quashed ... material facts and evidences in the first round of reassessment itself and that the AO has once again initiated the reassessment proceedings on mere change of opinion. The CIT(A) allowed the contention in favour of the assessee stating that the AO is not justified in reopening the assessment when

DCIT It 332 Mumbai, Income Tax vs. Pramarica Aspf II Cyprus Holding Ltd, Cyprus

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3040/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Shri YogeshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 148

Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, both the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 363/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Assessing Officer to the notices issued by him. It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any worthwhile presentation except that written submissions were filed in which it was mentioned that compliance could not be made before the Ld. Assessing Officer because a number of staff were suffering from COVID and hence were not alert enough to make proper representation before the Revenue Authorities. However, going by the fact that even before the Ld. CIT(A) ther

Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 271

that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the initiation of proceeding u/s 147/148 even though the same has been initiated on mere change of opinion. 10. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with documents and evidences on or before date

Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, both the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 362/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 271

Power Links Transmission Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4599/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Powerlinks, Transmission Ltd. Vs Additional 10Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Commissioner Of District Centre, Jasola, Income Tax, Spl. Range New Delhi. 7 New Delhi Pan No. Aabct7775M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3ASection 80I

after expiry of four years without re-course to any fresh and tangible material on record and the re-assessment was drawn on mere change of opinion. 2.2 That the impugned order disposing the objections against the "reasons for reopening" passec by the Ld. Addl. CIT is cryptic ... opinion. He has also stated that in this case no new material has been placed on record and this is a case of mere change of opinion. He has further submitted that during the course of original assessment the assessee has submitted all documents as copy of the Audited Accounts

Ramad Ventures Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 408/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.408/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Ramad Ventures Private Ltd. Dcit बनाम Old No.23, New No.18, Corporate Circle-5(1) Chellammal Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecr-7531-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 250

said that the assessee did not disclose all material facts for computation of income. The assessment could not be reopened on mere change of opinion. 3.4 However, Ld. CIT(A) held that it was for the assessee to lead evidences that the material was not only furnished but the same ... same set of material as available during assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). 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

S.P. Singla Construction Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 514/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153Section 153A

decision of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case, the impugned notice under Section 147/148 would obviously be on the basis of a mere change of opinion by the income- tax authorities, which would not be valid as held by the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern News- paper Society ... even then it will make no difference since even under the original Section 147 notice for reassessment could not be given on the mere change of opinion as held in numerous cases of the Supreme Court, some of which have been mentioned above. Since the Tribunal in the appeal relating

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

failure on part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts; (b) Impugned reassessment proceedings have been initiated on mere 'change of opinion'; (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without ... assessee. On this ground alone, the reassessment proceedings is invalid and bad in law, Re (b): Initiation of reassessment proceedings on mere change of opinion invalid In the present case, undisputedly no new material information came to the possession of the assessing officer subsequent to the completion of the original