“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

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 881/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

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 880/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

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

Brijwasi Jewellers, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi

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

ITA 9356/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

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

Brijwasi Jewellers, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi

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

ITA 9355/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

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

Brijwasi Jewellers, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi

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

ITA 9284/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

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

Nalini Parwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 249/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 249/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Nalini Parwani C/O. G.K Automobiles P. Ltd. Opp. Kabir Nagar, Gate No.2. Ring Road-2, Sondongri, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aeqpp5635N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Chawda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 57

order of assessment issued by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 27/02/2016, and therefore reopening of assessment being a mere change of opinion was not justified. 2. The Ld lower authorities erred in law and in fact by not disposing the objection raised by appellant regarding ... verified by Ld AO in its original assessment proceedings concluded u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and accordingly the same was merely change of opinion which is not permissible under the act. The assessment order may kindly to be set aside. 3. That the Ld. Lower authorities erred

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1), Raipur vs. M/S Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 73/RPR/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.73/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. H. No.11, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aahcs7999A ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri, Sakshi Gopal Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(2)(b)

given/granted as non genuine. The facts as discussed above reveals that the reopening of the case has been done on the basis of mere Change of opinion. No assessment can be reopened on the basis of change of opinion. I rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex court ... assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. Therefore, in these circumstances, the reasons in support of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and therefore would be completely without jurisdiction in the present facts. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 27 March 2019 is quashed and set aside

Sibasankar Sahu, - Deogarh vs. PCIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.217/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sibasankar Sahu, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Arnapurna Store, At: Bania Sahi, Po/Ps: Deogarh Dist-Deogarh-768108 Pan No. :Apeps 1706 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 18.03.2022, Passed In Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1041011837(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 199 Days. It Was The Submission That The Delay Was On Account Of Medical Treatment Of The Assessee’S Father & Assessee’S Wife. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Trading Of Potatoes, Onion & Garlic In The Remote Area Of The District Of Deogarh, Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Was Not Well- Versed In Taxation Issues & On Account Of The Medical Treatment Of The 2 Assessee’S Father As Also The Assessee’S Wife, The Assessee Could Not File

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 144ASection 263Section 44A

this year on the estimated turnover of Rs.1.79 Cr is not unreasonable. Substituting it with any other income may amount to a mere change of opinion. Moreover, the assessee has availed the benefit of Vivad Se viswas Scheme & has received form no.5 as confirmation as a beneficiary of the scheme

M/S Terecom (P) Ltd., Goa vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Panaji.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 63/PAN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148

debtors disclosed in the Balance Sheet. The reassessment is bad in law, as it amounts to initiating of re-assessment proceedings prompted by mere change of opinion by holding that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is required to be added back to the book profits in view ... challenges the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. The contention of the appellant that the re-opening is promoted by mere change of opinion is rejected, it cannot be accepted for the reason that there was no material on record to demonstrate that the Assessing Officer, during the course

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Aby T Vakery & Shri Amarjit Singhlarsen & Toubro Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L&T House, N M Marg Income Tax, Circle- (5)(4), Ballard Estate, Fort Mumbai (Erstwhile Mumbai- 400001 Income Tax Officer- 2(2) Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K. Poddar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 35Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in resorting to reassessment proceedings on account of a mere change in opinion on the same set of facts, which tantamounts to the Assessing Officer reviewing the action of his predecessor. Having regards to the facts ... framing reasons AO cannot confer upon himself jurisdiction which does not exist. The consistent view is that even after amendment of s. 147 mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction on the ITO to initiate proceedings for reassessment merely by resorting to Expl. 1 on the basis of change

Jai International, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 23/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: The Date Of Hearing. 4. That The Hon’Ble Pcit Has Not Given Any Specific Instance About Rejecting The Details Submitted By Us In Response To Their Query. 5. That The Hon’Ble Pcit Has Not Given Any Specific Reason/Speaking Order Contradicting Case Laws Submitted By Us. The Hon’Ble Pcit Only Says That The Facts Are Different.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

Trib.). There must be material before the PCIT to hold that an order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and mere change of opinion cannot render the order erroneous. That assessee has submitted all the required details, confirmations and produce bills of sundry creditors to the Learned

M/S. Minestone, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2546/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Minestone Acit-18(2) Room No. 32, 4Th Floor, Plot No. 98, Mumbai -400 020 Sagar Bhavan, Building No.2, Vs. Kantilal M Sharma Marg, Lohar Chawl, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148(1)Section 250

proviso to section 147 of the Act. The ld. AR for the assessee further contended that the reopening was a mere change of opinion by the A.O. and was to reconsider the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The ld. AR further stated that the addition

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jagannathdas Harichandmal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Raigarh

In the result appeal of revenue is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 106/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.106/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Jagannathdas Harichandmal Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Sadar Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan: Aaccj2840G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, Dated 16.03.2022 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y.2012-13. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, While Holding Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of Act As Invalid & Void-Ab-Initio, The Ld. Cit(A) Completely Ignored The Fact That During The Course Of Survey, The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Burden In Establishing 'The Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions As Required U/S 68 Of The Income Tac Act. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Reassessment Proceeding Are Based On Fresh Facts/Information Rather Than Change Of Opinion. 2. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Confirmation Of Concealment Of Income/Disclosure Made In Statement Recorded During Survey U/S 133A Of Act Is An Information, Though Not Conclusive, Which May Be Used In Regular Assessment Or Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

facts as discussed above reveals that the reopening of the case has been done on the basis of mere change of opinion. No assessment can be reopened on the basis of change of opinion. I rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case ... assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. Therefore, in these circumstances, the reasons in support of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and therefore would be completely without jurisdiction in the present facts. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 27 March 2019 is quashed and set aside

Black Box Ltd (Formerly Known As Agc Networks Ltd), Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1184/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Aby T Vakery & Shri Amarjit Singhblack Box Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 5Th Floor, Building No.9, Income Tax- 14(1)(1) Airoli Knowledge Park, 460, Aayakar Bhavan, Midc Industrial Area, M.K. Road, Airoli West, Navi Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai- 400708

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 35D

opening c. The learned CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the re- opening of assessment on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material being brought on record is not valid as held by Courts on various occasions; d. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating

Maya Devi Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of my observations above

ITA 193/RPR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 193/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Maya Devi Agrawal Near Dena Bank, Dupan Para Kharora, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Acipa5876A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

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

circumstances of the case and in law, reopening of the concluded assessment u/s.143(3) dt.2-12-10 in absence of any fresh/new material, be treated merely change of opinion on the same material facts, is not permissible in the eyes of law, is liable to be quashed." "2. On the facts ... initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act on two-fold grounds, viz. (i) the reopening of the concluded assessment based on a “mere change of opinion” was not sustainable in the eyes of the law; and (ii) that as per the mandate of “1st proviso” to Section

Aman Growth Fund Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 659/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 659/Del/2021, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Aman Growth Fund Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Private Limited Delhi-2 L-4, Green Park Extension New Delhi Pan : Aaaca0525B Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

under Section 56(2)(viib) on account of deemed dividend; • That subsequently, ld. PCIT shifted its stand reflecting a mere change of opinion by issuing another SCN dated 17.03.2020 Rs. 106.78 crores had escaped assessment during the relevant AY. Pertinent to note that in the said SCN, ld. PCIT

DCIT-Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. S D Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA Nos

ITA 6204/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.6191 To 6194, 6204 & 6033 /Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: Dharmesh Shah &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

under- 'It is true that even after the amendment in the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a mere change of opinion, ipso facto, would not confer or empower the Assessing Officer to embark upon a reassessment exercise. Notwithstanding that, power to make assessment