← 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

Karamshi Jethabhai Somaiya Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2608/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. K. Gopal a/w Ms. NehaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule , Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Officer of re-opening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Your appellant submits that the reopening is based on mere change of opinion and thus is illegal, bad in law and void as the Assessing Officer has not come into possession of any new tangible material

DCIT, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. East West Pipeline Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, without any adjudication upon the merits, Ground No. 5 to 8 to raised by the Revenue are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 1999/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 73(1)

Order dated 29/03/2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act holding the reassessment proceedings were initiated on account of mere change of opinion in absence of any fresh tangible material. Further, there was no default on the part of the Assessee in making full the true ... precedent enshrined in the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act not fulfilled in as much as the assessment was reopened on mere change of opinion without their being any new tangible material to support the same and therefore the assessment order is held to be vitiated

Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 250/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

very same record as had been subject matter of completed assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act; and (2) The principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessment u/s 143(3} of the Act. would have no application where the original order

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 191/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

very same record as had been subject matter of completed assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act; and (2) The principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessment u/s 143(3} of the Act. would have no application where the original order

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 190/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

very same record as had been subject matter of completed assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act; and (2) The principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessment u/s 143(3} of the Act. would have no application where the original order

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur vs. M/S Chadda Transport, Chandrapur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 363/NAG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.363/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant M/S.Chadda Transport, Commissioner Of V Kosara Road, Padoli, Income Tax, S Chandrapur, Chandrapur Circle, Maharashtra – 442401. Chandrapur. Pan: Aaafc8556F Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Cross Objection No.01/Nag/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.363/Nag/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S.Chadda Transport, The Assistant Kosara Road, Padoli, V Commissioner Of Income Chandrapur, S Tax, Maharashtra – 442401. Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur. Pan: Aaafc8556F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mukesh Agrawal – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Mrathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 68

Assessing Officer(AO) provided copy of reasons. Assessee filed objections before the AO. Assessee challenged the reopening on the ground that it is mere change of opinion and hence bad in law. 3.1 The ld.AR submitted that all the details were submitted during the original assessment proceedings. The ld.AR submitted ... constitute reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, in the case of assessee, the reasons for reopening are merely change of opinion and hence does not constitute reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 5.14 Therefore, for all the reasons discussed above

Rohit Manoj Mehra, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 71 1 New Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 2806/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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.” 21. 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

The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exem), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10(21)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)Section 263Section 35(1)(ii)

record. The assessee further submitted that issuing a notice to undertake proceedings under section 263 on the same issue once again is a mere change of opinion and shall bring hardship to the 7 The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association assessee. The assessee also submitted that the impugned income

The DCIT, (Intl. Taxn.), Rajkot vs. M/S. Korea South East Power Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 132/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

Section 115ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44B

which is contrary to the facts as available on record. 4. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that it is a mere change of opinion of the AO in taxing the receipts as FTS completely ignoring the judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT, being the highest fact finding ... between the “returned income” and the “assessed income” being contrary to facts II. the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that it was a mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer in taxing receipts as FTS, being unacceptable and perverse since the ITAT had confirmed the action of the Assessing

Dlf Home Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 7(2), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1495/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 147Section 148

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.” 17. Considering the facts in totality, we set aside the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, thereby setting aside the assessment order dated

Jay Kishore Choubey, Rairangpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Asansol

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2/CTK/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Jay Jay Kishore Kishore Choubey, Choubey, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1, Asansol. Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Acmpc 1759 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Das, Sr. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri P.R.MohantyFor Respondent: Shri Charan Das, Sr
Section 147Section 148

disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh information. Since, the belief ... relevant material after following due procedure, It cannot be assailed. it may involve change of opinion but not at par with mere change of opinion. (Tilak raj bedi vs JCIT (2009) 319 ITR 385-P&H) 12 (AIA firm vs cit (1991) 189 ITR 285(sc) -The expression 'information

Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -Ltu -1, Mumbai

In the result we find that in absence of tangible material, the reopening of assessment cannot be made

ITA 3949/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Bajaj Auto Limited 2N D Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Income-Tax, Vs. 226, Nariman Point, Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb2923M

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 147

come to the possession of AO, validating the initiation of reassessment proceedings. 6.3.5 The assessee has also contended that reopening is invalid for mere change of opinion. In respect of such contentions and reliance placed by the assessee it is stated that for existence of the fact of change

Anil Nachrani, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 47/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 47/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

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 re-assessment

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Life Inusrance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the revenue as well as the Cross objection of the assessee for the A

ITA 1848/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10Section 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

ACIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd (Now Known As Hdfc Life Insurance Co Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the revenue as well as the Cross objection of the assessee for the A

ITA 1775/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10Section 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Bhilai, Durg vs. Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd., Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 241/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.241/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 1(1), V Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd, Bhilai, Durg S Bsp Premises, Slag Yard Road (Opp Sector 4 Nmoh), Bhilai Pan: Aadcb1675Q (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri. R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 30-10-2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

NFAC is justified in quashing the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s144B of the Act on the ground that it was a mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer. 2 Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd. ITA 241/RPR/2023 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... NFAC is justified in quashing the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s of the Acton the ground that it was a mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer whereas the case of Yuvraj v/s Union of India of Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide 315 ITR 84 (Bombay

The Income Tax Officer Ward, 2, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Shri Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal, Jashpur (C.G.)

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 223/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 223/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer-2, Raigarh (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 41(4)Section 69

TechSpan India Private Ltd. & Anr. (2018) 404 ITR 10. It was, thus, the claim of the Ld. AR that a mere “change of opinion” by the successor A.O. on the basis of the same set of facts available on record would by no means justify the reopening of a concluded ... believe" failing which, we are afraid, s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot 19 ITO-2, Raigarh Vs. Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind

ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Brijwasi Jewellers, Delhi

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

ITA 1950/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

liable to be quashed as the same has been reopened 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)/153C of the Act. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Brijwasi Jewellers, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

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

ITA 1027/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

liable to be quashed as the same has been reopened 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)/153C of the Act. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Brijwasi Jewellers, New Delhi

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

ITA 882/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

liable to be quashed as the same has been reopened 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)/153C of the Act. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case