← 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

Ecgc Limited, Ecgc Bhawan vs. ACIT, New Marine Lines Mumbai

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

ITA 3544/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234B

view on the basis of the communication noted earlier, the act of reopening the assessment would have to be regarded as a mere change of opinion which has also not been based on any tangible material. Consequently, we hold that the reopening of the assessment is contrary

Ecgc Limited, Ecgc Bhawan vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 3543/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234B

view on the basis of the communication noted earlier, the act of reopening the assessment would have to be regarded as a mere change of opinion which has also not been based on any tangible material. Consequently, we hold that the reopening of the assessment is contrary

Ecgc Limited, Ecgc Bhawan vs. AO, New Marine Lines, Mumbai

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

ITA 3542/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234B

view on the basis of the communication noted earlier, the act of reopening the assessment would have to be regarded as a mere change of opinion which has also not been based on any tangible material. Consequently, we hold that the reopening of the assessment is contrary

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1809/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit Circle – 3(3)(1), R. No. 609, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. Small Industries Development Bank Of India Sme Development Centre, C-11, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan – Aabcs3480N ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kabra, Ld. AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)

material facts during the course of the assessment proceedings itself. Thus, reopening the said case on same facts is nothing but a mere change of opinion. It is now a well decided judicial pronouncement that no reopening is possible on the basis of change of opinion. Copies of following decisions ... same facts and material on record, the Assessing officer wishes to take a different view than the view taken earlier and a mere change of opinion cannot per se be a reason for reopening. In fact we would like to place reliance on following decision of tribunal which has rejected

Ropar District Co-Operative Union Limited, Mohali vs. PCIT, Chandigar-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 360/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AAKASH DEEPJAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 269USection 53A

raised by the assessee, the same is hereby accepted. The order under appeal is found to be a result of a mere change of opinion entertained by the ld. PCIT, as correctly contained on behalf of the assessee. The said order passed by the ld. PCIT is, accordingly, reversed

Kotari Srinivasa Rao, Undrajavaram Mandalam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry

In the result, additional ground raised is allowed

ITA 335/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.335/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Kotari Srinivasa Rao Vs. Principal Commissioner Of D.No.1-91, Canal Road Income Tax Velivennu Rajahmundry Undrajavaram Mandal West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Apjpk9870N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Md.Afzal,ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

initiating the proceedings u/s 263, without application of mind and basing on the recommendations of the successive Assessing Officer which is a mere change of opinion. 5. We have heard the Ld.AR and gone through the petition filed for admission of additional ground. The additional ground being a technical

Ntpc Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Special Range-06, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1811/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

wrong. Section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion.” 11. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Usha international 3 48ITR 485 wherein ... said that the authority has not applied its mind to the issue before it nor formed any opinion. The principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessments would be applicable only to situations where the Assessing Officer has applied his mind and taken

Ntpc Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Special Range-06, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1810/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

wrong. Section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion.” 11. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Usha international 3 48ITR 485 wherein ... said that the authority has not applied its mind to the issue before it nor formed any opinion. The principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessments would be applicable only to situations where the Assessing Officer has applied his mind and taken

Jayantilal Keshavji Chheda, Vile Parle East vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(2)(4), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 2891/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Jayantilal Keshavji Chheda Income Tax Officer Shop No. 1, Vireshwar Krupa, Ward 25(2)(4) Tejpal Road, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai Mumbai – 400 057

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar Meena
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

assessee where the assessee has disclosed all the material facts before the ld. A.O. The ld. AR further contended that it was a mere change of opinion by the ld. A.O. that the assessee’s case has been reopened 3 Jayantilal Keshavji Chheda vs. ITO where there was no application

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT predecessor in office of the Assessing officer formed an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Mere change of opinion is not valid grounds for reopening the assessment. 4. Sir, we humbly submit that the present case is classic example of mere change ... opinion despite being settled legal preposition that assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of a mere change of opinion. In this connection we wish to further submit as under:-  At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that the assessment of the appellant was completed

JCIT (OSD), I/C DCIT, Circle-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed and appeal/CO of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1897/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. Cross Objection No. 80/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Tata Aia Life बिधम/ Jt. Commissioner Of Insurance Co. Ltd. Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Dcit, Circle-8(3)(1) Peninsula Business Park, Aaykar Bhavan, Room Senapati, Bapat Marg, No. 615, M. K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai- New Marine Lines, 400013. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1759/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Circle-8(3)(1) 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. .

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das (DR)
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 44

view on the basis of the communication noted earlier, the act of reopening the assessment would have to be regarded as a mere change of opinion which has also not been based on any tangible material. Consequently, we hold that the reopening of the assessment is contrary

DCIT- 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1759/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. 615, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai- 400020. Vs. बनाम / M/S. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013. Cross Objection No. 80/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013. बनाम / Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. 615, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1759/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Vs. Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. 615, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai- 400020. M/S. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das (DR)
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 44

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1757/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 44

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

ITO Ward - 4, Rohtak vs. Surender Dalal, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 7714/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7714/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Ito, Surender Dalal, Ward-4, Vs. Dalal Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak, Haryana Near Petrol Pump, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7490/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Surender Dalal, Ito, Dalal Bhawan, Vs. Ward-4, Near Petrol Pump, Aayakar Bhawan, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

assessment proceedings, the successor- Assessing Officer could not have sought to reopen the proceedings on the same ground as it amounted to a mere change of opinion. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer had based his belief on the fact that the assessee had not filed any return

Surender Dalal, Rohtak vs. ITO Ward - 4, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 7490/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7714/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Ito, Surender Dalal, Ward-4, Vs. Dalal Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak, Haryana Near Petrol Pump, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7490/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Surender Dalal, Ito, Dalal Bhawan, Vs. Ward-4, Near Petrol Pump, Aayakar Bhawan, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

assessment proceedings, the successor- Assessing Officer could not have sought to reopen the proceedings on the same ground as it amounted to a mere change of opinion. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer had based his belief on the fact that the assessee had not filed any return

Vaaan Infra Private Limited, Haryana vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-7, Delhi

ITA 1102/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: PCIT, Delhi-9, however the order passed by Hon'ble PCIT, Delhi-7 on 30.03.2021.

Section 263Section 56(2)(vib)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 56(25)(viib)

last submission on 18.06.2020 before Hon'ble PCIT, Delhi-9, however the order passed by Hon'ble PCIT, Delhi-7 on 30.03.2021. 4. Mere change of opinion without satisfying twin conditions can't give rise to revision under section 263 of the Act. 4.1 That the order passed under section ... PCIT did not agree, cannot form the basis for an action under section 263 of the Act. Hence, there is mere change of opinion, assessment is void ab initio. 4.3 That the twin condition (i)That the order passed by Learned AO is erroneous, and (ii)That it is prejudicial

Jayanti Vasishta, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 687/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Kavitha P. CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 250Section 48

Notice in order to place further documents on records. 4. That the Learned Assessing Officer erred in re-opening the proceedings on mere change of opinion based on audit objection and material already available on records. That the Learned CIT(A) grossly erred in contending that the rulings relied upon

M/S. Panjos Builders Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/BANG/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 40Section 4o

eyes of law on the facts and circumstances of the case. f) The order of reassessment passed U/s 148 is on a mere change of opinion and is impermissible, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B

ITO, Ward-20(1), New Delhi vs. Placid Buildwell P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6744/DEL/2018[ 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Nath Baranwal, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment has been reopened by the AO on the basis of the reasons which are mere change of opinion as the issue was already examined during the course of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. 9. The respondent craves leave

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1558/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.1558 /मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2012-13) Strides Pharma Science Limited [Formerly Known As Strides Arcolab Limited/ Strides Shasun Limited] 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aadcs-8104-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle – 15(3)(2), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate With Shri Ninand Patade "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase & Dr.Samuel Pitta सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/01/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 24/01/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. This Appeal Emanates From The Proceedings U/S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate with Shri Ninand PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase &
Section 154

wherein the Court has held that the right to rectify mistakes under section 154 could not be invoked in a case of mere change of opinion. A rectifiable mistake was a mistake, which was obvious and not something which had to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning