← 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

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1426/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

therefore, submitted that the reopening of assessment which was invalidly done and conclusion of the AO is nothing but a mere change of opinion on the basis of same facts which is not permissible under the Act. In defense of his argument, the Ld. AR relied on the decision

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1425/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

therefore, submitted that the reopening of assessment which was invalidly done and conclusion of the AO is nothing but a mere change of opinion on the basis of same facts which is not permissible under the Act. In defense of his argument, the Ld. AR relied on the decision

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, Cir. 8(1) vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1424/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

therefore, submitted that the reopening of assessment which was invalidly done and conclusion of the AO is nothing but a mere change of opinion on the basis of same facts which is not permissible under the Act. In defense of his argument, the Ld. AR relied on the decision

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1423/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

therefore, submitted that the reopening of assessment which was invalidly done and conclusion of the AO is nothing but a mere change of opinion on the basis of same facts which is not permissible under the Act. In defense of his argument, the Ld. AR relied on the decision

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Spr and RG Constructions Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1486/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1485 & 1486/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 V. The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Spr & Rg Constructions- Corporate Ward-6(1), Pvt. Ltd., 57, 1St Floor, Chennai. Narayana Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

believe” wherein it is held the Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen the assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion failing to given a systematic interpretation. It was held that there is conceptual difference between power to review and power to frame reassessment

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Spr and RG Constructions Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1485/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1485 & 1486/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 V. The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Spr & Rg Constructions- Corporate Ward-6(1), Pvt. Ltd., 57, 1St Floor, Chennai. Narayana Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

believe” wherein it is held the Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen the assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion failing to given a systematic interpretation. It was held that there is conceptual difference between power to review and power to frame reassessment

ITO, WD.9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 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 ... completed assessment and again made addition. On appeal, assessee re-agitated point of validity of re-assessment proceedings on ground that there was mere change of opinion. AAC found that no reasons were recorded by ITO before issuing notice for re-assessment and, therefore, held that ITO had no jurisdiction

Income Tax Office -34(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Prime Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4246/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41Section 41(1)

examined by the AO at the time of regular assessment hence reopening of said issue is mere change of opinion. In this context, it is important to note that Section 147 requires the assessee to declare the material not merely fully but also "truly". The appellant failed to file before

M/S Prime Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -25(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4152/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41Section 41(1)

examined by the AO at the time of regular assessment hence reopening of said issue is mere change of opinion. In this context, it is important to note that Section 147 requires the assessee to declare the material not merely fully but also "truly". The appellant failed to file before

M/S. Kankaria Maninagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-6(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2350/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2349 & 2350/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Kankaria Maninagar Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Nagarik Sahakari Bank Income Tax Vs. Circle – 6(1), Ahmedabad Ltd. Bhagwan Chamber, Maninagar Char Rasta, Maninagar, Ahmedabad 380008 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaak6862D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Rahul Patel, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 27.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. While One Appeal Is Against Order U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), The Other One Is Against The Rectification Order U/S. 154 Of The Act. These Appeals Were Heard Together And

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

Banking Regulations Act and CBDT Circular No.599 of 24.04.1991. The Ld. AR also submitted that the reopening of the case was based on mere change of opinion. ITA Nos. 2349 & 2350/Ahd/2018 (Kankaria Maninagar Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Y.– 2012-13 - 5 – 5. Ld. DR, on the other hand

M/S. Kankaria Maninagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-6(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2349/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2349 & 2350/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Kankaria Maninagar Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Nagarik Sahakari Bank Income Tax Vs. Circle – 6(1), Ahmedabad Ltd. Bhagwan Chamber, Maninagar Char Rasta, Maninagar, Ahmedabad 380008 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaak6862D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Rahul Patel, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 27.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. While One Appeal Is Against Order U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), The Other One Is Against The Rectification Order U/S. 154 Of The Act. These Appeals Were Heard Together And

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

Banking Regulations Act and CBDT Circular No.599 of 24.04.1991. The Ld. AR also submitted that the reopening of the case was based on mere change of opinion. ITA Nos. 2349 & 2350/Ahd/2018 (Kankaria Maninagar Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Y.– 2012-13 - 5 – 5. Ld. DR, on the other hand

ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 645/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 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 ... completed assessment and again made addition. On appeal, assessee re-agitated point of validity of re-assessment proceedings on ground that there was mere change of opinion. AAC found that no reasons were recorded by ITO before issuing notice for re-assessment and, therefore, held that ITO had no jurisdiction

Maheshwari Megaventures Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad03 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50C

existing material, the Hon’ble Court found that such an action of reopening by the learned Assessing Officer per se, founded on mere change of opinion and the same cannot satisfy the legislative intent that the learned Assessing Officer had reason to believe that any income chargeable

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2785/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer V. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli) R.N. 234, 2Nd Floor 12/A Yusuf Building Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc Veer Nariman Road, Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400051 Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aapfs0181B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan Department Represented By :

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Tribunal was correct in law in treating the reopening of the case as bad in law by holding it to be a mere change of opinion without appreciating the fact that the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued within four years from ... view, the view taken by the impugned order of Tribunal that the reopening notice is without jurisdiction as it is founded on a mere change of opinion is on facts covered by the decision of this Court in favour of the respondent assessee. (k). In the above view, the question

Anoop Nopany, Kolata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1381/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1381/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anoop Nopany………………….…….…................…...……………....Appellant P-39, 2Nd Floor, Princep Street, Kolkata- 700072. [Pan: Abfpn3215L] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Narendra Kedia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(Appeal) Nfac, Failed To Notice That Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3)/263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Void Ab-Initio, Lacks Jurisdiction Since Original Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passes U/S 143(3) Was Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio. & Consequentially Any

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

completed assessment and again made addition. On appeal, assessee re-agitated point of validity of re- assessment proceedings on ground that there was mere change of opinion. AAC found that no reasons were recorded by ITO before issuing notice for re-assessment and, therefore, held that ITO had no jurisdiction

V.K.Nanavaty Share and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2614/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2614/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) V. K. Nanavaty Share & बिधम/ Ito, Ward-4(2)(4) R. No. 647, 6Th Floor, Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd Vs. R-709, Rotunda Building, Aaykar Bhavan, Bombay Stock Exchange, Maharishi Karve Road, M. S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai- Churchgate, Mumbai- 400023. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv9670N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue By: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 30.05.2023 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First.

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

fresh or tangible material for re-opening beyond 4 years was found, (d) re-opening was based on mere change of opinion, (e) information, which was the basis for, ‘reasons recorded’ was not made available, (f) the case of M/s Rushabh Enterprises in Writ Petition No. 167/2015, part

ACIT, Cent Circle-1, Trichy vs. M/S Mangal & Mangal, Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 511/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 511/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal & Mangal, Income Tax, V. 25, N.S.B. Road, Teppakulam, Central Circle -2, Trichy – 620 002. No. 44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaifm-3378-B] Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. Nlay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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 ... during the original assessment proceedings and with no new information or material that came to the possession of the AO subsequently, amounts to mere change of opinion without the presence of tangible material and consequently, the reopening of the assessment is not legally tenable. 22. In view of the foregoing

M/S Godawari Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1445/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein it is stated that expression “reason to believe” cannot comprehend mere change of opinion which would only amount to an impermissible review. An assessment cannot be reopened merely to verify the genuineness of expenses/claims

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Aspen International Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3594/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2014-15
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 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 subsequent to completion of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Aspen International Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3593/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 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 subsequent to completion of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C