“ mere change of opinion ”

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

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.

268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court

695

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

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.

256 ITR 1 · 2002 · High Court

439

354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court

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.

366

264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court

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

253

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT

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.

308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court

248

CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd.

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.

325 ITR 285 · 2010 · High Court

243

CIT v. Usha International Ltd.

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.

348 ITR 485 · 2012 · High Court

231

ITA 3537/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Bharat Sons HUF, Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas,

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

ITA 8422/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

authority has not only held the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act to be invalid as it was on a mere change of opinion, but he has also decided the issue on merits following the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 2014-15. Thus, he submitted ... appellate authority not only held the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act to be invalid as it was on a mere change of opinion, but he also decided the issue on merits following the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 2014- 15. 9. The facts discussed

Bharatsons HUF, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-46(1), New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas,

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

ITA 8421/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bharatsons HUF, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-46(1), New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas,

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

ITA 8420/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bharatsons HUF, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-46(1), New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas,

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

ITA 447/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

ITO-19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Priti Bharat Parekh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Ito-19(2)(4) Vs. Priti Bharat Parekh 507, 5Th Floor, Piramal 6C Landsend Chs 29 D Chambers, Parel, Dongersey Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Malabar Hill Maharashtra – 400006 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaepp1784C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : B.V. Jhaveri & Ms. Bhargavi Raval Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Nfac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Quashing The Reopening By The Ao With The Opinion That The Reopening Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law Without Appreciating That The Facts On Which The Reopening Was Done Are Not Available By The Ao At The Time Of Original Assessment 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Penny Stock Transaction Without Appreciating The Facts That During The Course Of Investigation, It Was Found That The Scrips In Which The Assessee Traded Is Penny Stock Used For Providing Accommodation Entry Only In Form Of Bogus Ltcg & Stcg & Shared With The Jurisdiction Ao In The Fy 2020-21. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Penny Stock Transaction Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Has Entered

For Appellant: B.V. Jhaveri &For Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

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

reproduced as under: “6.21 Further, there are plethora of other judgments and decisions by the various courts of law on the point that mere change of opinion cannot be per se reason to reopen as under:- German Remedies Ltd vs. DCIT & Ors (2006) 285 ITR 26 (Bom.) Siemens Information System

Joint Commossioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 19/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M. Murali, CITFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viiia)

believe" failing which, we are afraid, 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. 7. 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

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 18/CHNY/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.18/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M. Murali, CITFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(viiia)

believe" failing which, we are afraid, 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. :- 6 -: 7. 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

DCIT CC -4(4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3614/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

erred on facts and in law 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 to the possession of the assessing officer M CITCA) subsequent to completion of assessment under section ... Supreme Court in CIT vs Kelviantor India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) that the reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on the basis of mere ‘change of opinion' by the Assessing Officer on the same set of the facts and circumstances. But in the instant case, we find that

DCIT CC -4(4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3610/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

erred on facts and in law 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 to the possession of the assessing officer M CITCA) subsequent to completion of assessment under section ... assessee as well group concerns, the Assessing Officer has validly reopened the assessment. In our opinion, this is not a case of mere change of opinion on same set of facts and circumstances of the case in prior assessments but it is based on the subsequent tangible information and hence

DCIT CC 4 (4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3606/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

ITA 3605/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

initiated on reassessment proceedings, despite the same having been initiated on reassessment proceedings, despite the same having been initiated on the basis of mere change of opinion, without any new tangible the basis of mere change of opinion, without any new tangible the basis of mere change of opinion, without

DCIT CC 4 (4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

ITA 3603/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

ITA 3602/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

erred on facts and in law 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 to the possession of the assessing officer M CITCA) subsequent to completion of assessment under section ... assessee as well group concerns, the Assessing Officer has validly reopened the assessment. In our opinion, this is not a case of mere change of opinion on same set of facts and circumstances of the case in prior assessments but it is based on the subsequent tangible information and hence

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3491/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

erred on facts and in law 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 to the possession of the assessing officer M CITCA) subsequent to completion of assessment under section ... assessee is accordingly dismissed. 9. In additional ground No. 1.2, the assessee has challenged reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of mere 'change of opinion' without being any tangible material in possession of the Assessing Officer subsequent to completion of the regular assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) has rejected this

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3474/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

ITA 3473/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

erred on facts and in law 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 to the possession of the assessing officer M CITCA) subsequent to completion of assessment under section ... assessee as well group concerns, the Assessing Officer has validly reopened the assessment. In our opinion, this is not a case of mere change of opinion on same set of facts and circumstances of the case in prior assessments but it is based on the subsequent tangible information and hence

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3472/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

erred on facts and in law 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 to the possession of the assessing officer M CITCA) subsequent to completion of assessment under section ... assessee as well group concerns, the Assessing Officer has validly reopened the assessment. In our opinion, this is not a case of mere change of opinion on same set of facts and circumstances of the case in prior assessments but it is based on the subsequent tangible information and hence

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas

ITA 3471/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

erred on facts and in law 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 to the possession of the assessing officer M CITCA) subsequent to completion of assessment under section ... assessee as well group concerns, the Assessing Officer has validly reopened the assessment. In our opinion, this is not a case of mere change of opinion on same set of facts and circumstances of the case in prior assessments but it is based on the subsequent tangible information and hence

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3470/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi