“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

Mr. Anmol Govindram Sekhri, Bandra Arcade, Nandi Gully, Opp Bandra Railway St vs. Circle 16(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarmrs. Suneeta Sekhri V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of (Legal Heir Of Mr. Anmol बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 16(2), Govindram Sekhri), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – Ground Floor, Bandra Arcade, 400020, Maharashtra Nandi Gully, Opp. Bandra Railway Station, Bandra(West), Mumbai – 400 050, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Alhps9957L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar & Ms. Rupal Shrimal, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT-DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 68

void ab initio. Proceedings u/s 263 are bad in law as he erred in invoking jurisdiction as the revision was based on a mere change of opinion and did not satisfy any conditions outlined in explanation 2 to sub-section (1) of Section 263.Thus, the ld. PCIT had deemed that ... acknowledged the above facts in the body of the revision order itself. In such a situation, the observations and his findings constitute a mere change of opinion. Moreover, with taking due note of the fact that quantum appeal was already pending on the impugned issue, he was wrong in assuming

Vandanaben Rajbhai Parikh, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 1135/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

developments unconnected with the assessee’s assessment. 17. In the present case, however, the revision under section 263 is not founded on a mere change of opinion or on a later external event alone. It is I.T.A No. 1135/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2020-21 Page No 8 Vandanaben Rajbhai Parikh vs. Pr.CIT

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4819/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 35D

taxmann.com 310) without distinguishing them on facts. The present case involved a tangible mistake in interpretation/application of law and not a case of mere change of opinion? 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that an issue made ... advanced submissions challenging the reopening under section 148 of the Act on the ground that it was based solely on a mere change of opinion and in the absence of any new tangible material. He invited our attention to pages 157 to 160 of the Assessee’s Paper Book

Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(3), Cr Building vs. Jmv Infrastructure Private Limited, Tri Nagar, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 8487/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara**

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

action in lower appellate discussion holding the impugned reopening as not sustainable in law being in the nature of mere change of opinion going by CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 161 3. That being the case, the tribunal hereby notices from the perusal of the case records ... side. I therefore hold in this factual backdrop that the CIT(A)'s lower discussion has already quashed the impugned reopening as a mere change of opinion which does not call for any interference. 4. The Revenue's appeal is dismissed. *Order pronounced in the open court on 27th January

Natharam Panaji Choudhary, Pune vs. I.T.O. Ward 8(1), Pune

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

ITA 1826/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

said that the authority has not applied his mind to the issue before it, nor formed any opinion. The principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening a completed assessment would be applicable to only to situations where Assessing Officer has applied his mind

Natharam Panaji Choudhary, Pune vs. I.T.O. Ward 8(1), Pune

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

ITA 1823/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 1670/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

further argued that after considering the assessee’s submissions and books of account, reopening of the assessment for denying of exemption is mere “change of opinion”, is illegal and placed reliance in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC). He prayed to allow ground ... Assessing Officer. 12. With reference to the contention of change of opinion, the ld. DR argued that the reopening constitutes a mere change of opinion, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,

ITA 1669/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

further argued that after considering the assessee’s submissions and books of account, reopening of the assessment for denying of exemption is mere “change of opinion”, is illegal and placed reliance in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC). He prayed to allow ground ... Assessing Officer. 12. With reference to the contention of change of opinion, the Id. DR argued that the reopening constitutes a mere change of opinion, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-4, Chennai

ITA 1667/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

further argued that after considering the assessee's submissions and books of account, reopening of the assessment for denying of exemption is mere “change of opinion", is illegal and placed reliance in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC). He prayed to allow ground ... Assessing Officer. 12. With reference to the contention of change of opinion, the Id. DR argued that the reopening constitutes a mere change of opinion, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India

Vatsalabai Karbhari Deore, Kalwan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 2274/PUN/2025[2011 - 12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Sailee Dhole

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 68

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 be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power ... past and was well settled and its omission from s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989, has again amended s. 147 to reintroduce the expression has reason to believe' in place

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1561/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

reopening. 2.3. The AO having reopened the assessment on the basis of material already on record, without any fresh tangible material, amounts to mere change of opinion, the CIT(A) ought to have quashed the same as illegal. 2.4. The AO having conducted the reassessment proceedings in violation

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1312/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Cent. Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1311/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

DCIT, Chennai vs. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1274/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is partly

ITA 2831/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

cross-objection raised by the assessee challenges the validity of reopening of the assessment on the ground that it is founded on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible in law. 8.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the contentions of the assessee observing as under: “6. I have ... Company Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2831/MUM/2025 & CO. 130/M/2025 Kelvinator of India Ltd. has held that reassessment cannot be resorted to on a mere change of opinion and that the concept of “change of opinion” acts as an in-built safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power by the Assessing Officer

Ktm Impex Private Limited, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2377/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

independent application of mind or tangible material relating specifically to the Appellant. Relied on. 2. Reassessment based on borrowed satisfaction and constitutes mere change of opinion The AO acted mechanically based on third-party statements and no inquiry was conducted to corroborate allegations with the Appellant's case. Each case ... independent application of mind or tangible material relating specifically to the assessee. He further submitted that reassessment based on borrowed satisfaction and constitutes mere change of opinion, the AO acted mechanically based on third-party statements and no inquiry was conducted to corroborate allegations with the assessee's case

Best Bull Stock Trading Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2954/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153(6)Section 153A

inference which he should draw from the primary facts. If an Income-tax Officer draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessments: See Income-tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal

Best Bull Stock Trading Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-18, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2953/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153(6)Section 153A

Parvindar Indar Singh, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1002/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

reopening were very much before the AO at the time of scrutiny assessment made u/s. 143(3), therefore the reopening of assessment being mere change of opinion was to be set aside by observing as follows: “Section 72, read with sections 143 and 147, of the Income ... have come to knowledge of Assessing Officer after framing of assessment - Whether therefore, Instant case could be said to be one of mere change of opinion and thus impugned notice was to be quashed and set aside Held, yes [Paras 7 and 10] [In favour of assessee) Section 4, read

Parvindar Indar Singh, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1001/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 14ASection 154