← 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Financial Corp. Ltd., Lucknow

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2355/DEL/2009[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasahara India Financial Corp Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1-Kapoorthala Complex, Central Circle-I, Aliganj, Lucknow Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs8698C

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 68

spot survey and no objectionable material was found. It was submitted that there was no tangible material for reopening and on mere change of opinion reopening is proceeded. In support of this contention, catena of judicial pronouncement were relied by the ld. Sr. Counsel. ITA No. 2339, 2355 to 2358/Del/2009

Sahara India Financial Corp. Limited, Lucknow vs. DCIT, Lucknow

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2339/DEL/2009[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasahara India Financial Corp Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1-Kapoorthala Complex, Central Circle-I, Aliganj, Lucknow Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs8698C

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 68

spot survey and no objectionable material was found. It was submitted that there was no tangible material for reopening and on mere change of opinion reopening is proceeded. In support of this contention, catena of judicial pronouncement were relied by the ld. Sr. Counsel. ITA No. 2339, 2355 to 2358/Del/2009

Manoj Kumar Tripathy, Cuttack vs. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 45/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack14 Feb 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu & Somanath Sahoo, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 263Section 44A

assessment after due verification of the books of account and other relevant materials and framed the assessment in accordance with law, then on mere change of opinion, the learned Pr. CIT cannot assume jurisdiction u/s.263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The relevant paragraph of the said judgement is quoted below

Airads Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-2(1), New Delhi

ITA 6652/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaairads Limited Vs. Dcit, 4624/ 18, Ansari Road, Circle-2(1), Darya Ganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 Pan : Aaaca5793R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Engineering Co. P Ltd Vs CIT 2001 247 ITR 818 SC to contend that it is not case of mere change of opinion and there was fresh material available to reopen the assessment. 7. Now, appreciating the matter on record it can be observed that Ld. DR was not able

The Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1), Raipur vs. M/S Sankalp Realities, Raipur

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

ITA 47/RPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.47/Rpr/2018 Co. No.01/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sankalp Realities, 28/620 Anand Niwas, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Abcsf6391P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for reopening of its concluded assessment on the basis of a mere change of opinion; as well as submitted before him that no addition even otherwise on merits was called for in its hands. The assessee had submitted before ... validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for reopening of its concluded assessment on the basis of a mere “change of opinion”, as well as impliedly subscribed to his claim that now when certain items of balance sheet, viz. 7 DCIT, Circle-3(1) Vs. M/s. Sankalp

Hetram Bokan, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1688/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Hetram Bokan, Vs Ito, 226, 2Nd Floor, Jmd Megapolis, Ward-2(1), Sohna Road, Sector-48, Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. Pan-Amkpb3430B Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2023

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 234A

return, processing is done under s. 8 | P a g e 143(1) or assessment is made under s. 143(3). No doubt, mere change of opinion by itself is not a ground for reassessment as held in the judgments relied upon on behalf of the assessee but if there

The Dy CIT, Central-1, Bhopasl vs. M/S R.K.Gupta & Engineers P Ltd, 2009-10

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 325/IND/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpandey, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 47Section 80I

assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhopal. The assessee submitted that the reopening of assessment proceedings is mere change of opinion as the stock statement as on 31.03.2009 submitted to the bank had been submitted during the original assessment proceedings vide reply dated ... 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

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

ITA 990/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Harishankar Lal, DR
Section 148

Assessing Officer are merely change of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are merely change of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are merely change of opinion on same set of facts and circumstances. He further opinion on same set of facts and circumstances opinion on same set of facts ... observation of truly and fully Secondly, truly and fully Secondly, he submitted that reassessment is based reassessment is based purely on mere ‘change of opinion change of opinion’. In support, he relied on the he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nsl Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 22/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 22/Hyd/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Nsl Properties Private Income Tax, Vs. Limited, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Aaccn7387G] (अपीलधर्थी / Appellant) (प्रत् यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

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 ... well settled and its omission from section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989 , has again amended section 147 to reintroduce the expression 'has reason to believe' in place

Sri. B.V. Ravikumar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 138/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

behest of the assessee and her husband and therefore cannot be held that the reopening of the assessment was based on mere change of opinion. 7. The assessee also made submissions before the CIT(A) elaborating the source of the cash deposits. The assessee submitted that the assessee has taken ... behest of the assessee and her husband and therefore cannot be held that the reopening of the assessment was based on mere change of opinion. 29. On merits the assessee submitted that the source for the cash deposits is the earlier withdrawals which were rejected

Sri. B.V. Ravikumar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 137/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

behest of the assessee and her husband and therefore cannot be held that the reopening of the assessment was based on mere change of opinion. 7. The assessee also made submissions before the CIT(A) elaborating the source of the cash deposits. The assessee submitted that the assessee has taken ... behest of the assessee and her husband and therefore cannot be held that the reopening of the assessment was based on mere change of opinion. 29. On merits the assessee submitted that the source for the cash deposits is the earlier withdrawals which were rejected

Smt. K.R. Geetha, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2306/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

behest of the assessee and her husband and therefore cannot be held that the reopening of the assessment was based on mere change of opinion. 7. The assessee also made submissions before the CIT(A) elaborating the source of the cash deposits. The assessee submitted that the assessee has taken ... behest of the assessee and her husband and therefore cannot be held that the reopening of the assessment was based on mere change of opinion. 29. On merits the assessee submitted that the source for the cash deposits is the earlier withdrawals which were rejected

Smt. K.R. Geetha, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2305/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

behest of the assessee and her husband and therefore cannot be held that the reopening of the assessment was based on mere change of opinion. 7. The assessee also made submissions before the CIT(A) elaborating the source of the cash deposits. The assessee submitted that the assessee has taken ... behest of the assessee and her husband and therefore cannot be held that the reopening of the assessment was based on mere change of opinion. 29. On merits the assessee submitted that the source for the cash deposits is the earlier withdrawals which were rejected

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sun Metallics & Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2628/Mum/2018 for A

ITA 2629/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. K.Shivaram, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Satyapal Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

case has already been completed in scrutiny u/s. 143(3) of the Act and the reopening of the case is a mere change of opinion. During reassessment assessee made various submissions in response to the queries raise with reference to the points raised in survey report ... page nos. 57 to 58 of the PB No.1 of CIT (A) and as such re- opening of the same issue is a mere change of opinion as there is no fresh material with the AO within four years. v) That from the reasons recorded and findings returned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sun Metallics & Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2628/Mum/2018 for A

ITA 2628/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. K.Shivaram, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Satyapal Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

case has already been completed in scrutiny u/s. 143(3) of the Act and the reopening of the case is a mere change of opinion. During reassessment assessee made various submissions in response to the queries raise with reference to the points raised in survey report ... page nos. 57 to 58 of the PB No.1 of CIT (A) and as such re- opening of the same issue is a mere change of opinion as there is no fresh material with the AO within four years. v) That from the reasons recorded and findings returned

DCIT, Chennai vs. B.V.Reddy Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1914/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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 assessment. The grounds or reasons which lead to the formation

Saravana Stores, Chennai vs. ACIT, C.C-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 488/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

regular assessment proceedings and the reopening has been done on the basis of same set of material and therefore, it was case of mere change of opinion. The Ld. AR also submitted that reopening is beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year and there was no allegation ... fully and truly all material facts and in this case, there was no such failure. It was further submitted that reopening was on mere change of opinion. However, rejecting the same, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.56.32 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. 4. Appellate Proceedings

M/S. Kwality Biscuits Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 675/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55(2)

well settled and its omission from section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989 , has again amended section 147 to reintroduce the expression 'has reason to believe' in place

ITO 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M Pallonji Enerprises P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas dismissed whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1907/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-1(2)(3), M/S M Pallonji Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 527, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 3357 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 68

Assessing Officer to re powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to re "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to re "mere change of opinion", which ... arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reo arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessments on pen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989, has mere change of opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989, has mere

R.Rajagopal Tondaiman, Trichy vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Trichy

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

ITA 525/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.525/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri R. Rajagopal Tondaiman, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 4-D, New No. 22, Collector Income Tax, Office Road, Trichy 620 001. Central Circle 1, Trichy. [Pan:Afbpr0712E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 30.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is A Hereditary Of Raja Of Pudukottai & Stated That He Is Assessed To Tax In The Status Of Huf & Individual. The Property At Cenotaph Road, Chennai Was Given To M/S. Doshi Housing Ltd. On A Development Agreement Entered Into On 30.01.2006 Through A Power Of Attorney. The Assessing Officer Has 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

same set of facts with no failure on the part 5 I.T.A. No.525/Chny/20 of the assessee to disclose material facts would tantamount to mere "change of opinion". In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) has observed and held ... 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