← 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

Sanjay Hirachand Chokad, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1801/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 292B

learned AO erred in passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 by reopening the assessment for a second time u/s 148 by mere change of opinion which is bad in law as per the judgement of SC in the case of Kelvinator of India

The United Western Bank Ltd. (Through Successors Idbi Bank Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 289/PUN/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us. 036. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that reopening of the assessment has been made on mere change of opinion and in absence of any tangible material. He submitted that assessment records for Assessment Year 2001-02 was the only basis for reopening ... assessee. He also submitted that note No. 5 to the notes on financial statements clearly shows the above transaction. Therefore, it is mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer and reopening is invalid. 037. On the merits of the case he submitted that the assessee has introduced employee stock

The United Western Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalgaon

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 1339/PUN/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us. 036. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that reopening of the assessment has been made on mere change of opinion and in absence of any tangible material. He submitted that assessment records for Assessment Year 2001-02 was the only basis for reopening ... assessee. He also submitted that note No. 5 to the notes on financial statements clearly shows the above transaction. Therefore, it is mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer and reopening is invalid. 037. On the merits of the case he submitted that the assessee has introduced employee stock

The United Western Bank Ltd., Satara vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 1738/PUN/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us. 036. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that reopening of the assessment has been made on mere change of opinion and in absence of any tangible material. He submitted that assessment records for Assessment Year 2001-02 was the only basis for reopening ... assessee. He also submitted that note No. 5 to the notes on financial statements clearly shows the above transaction. Therefore, it is mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer and reopening is invalid. 037. On the merits of the case he submitted that the assessee has introduced employee stock

Arch Impex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7008/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ajay SinghFor Respondent: S.A. Dhyani
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

completed u/s 143 (3) of the Act dtd: 22/2/2013 after proper application of mind on the issues involved, thus reopening in based on mere change of opinion on same set of facts which was duly disclosed in the assessment. 2. The reopening of assessment is based on audit objection

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

ITA 737/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Ms Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

special reserve and has allowed deduction of special reserve at 514,43,59,610 – hence the reassessment on the said issue is on mere change of opinion on the same set of facts which is not permissible in law.” 035. On careful consideration of the ground raised before the learned

M N Dastur & Company Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2443/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Manjunatha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR), ITAT, Bangalore
Section 115WSection 234DSection 244A

appellant had disclosed the primary material facts fully and truly necessary for assessment and mere change of opinion cannot be the basis for making reassessment. 7. The Learned AO /CIT(A) erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 81,55,514/- being 5% of tour and travel expenses

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

that section 147 would not give arbitrary power to the AO to reopen the assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion which cannot be per se reason to reopen. It was also held that there is a difference between power to review and power to reassess ... initiated in accordance with Section 147 of the said Act. The Tribunal held that reopening of an assessment on the basis of a mere change of opinion was not justified. The submission before the High Court was that it was not a case of change of opinion by the Assessing

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

that section 147 would not give arbitrary power to the AO to reopen the assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion which cannot be per se reason to reopen. It was also held that there is a difference between power to review and power to reassess ... initiated in accordance with Section 147 of the said Act. The Tribunal held that reopening of an assessment on the basis of a mere change of opinion was not justified. The submission before the High Court was that it was not a case of change of opinion by the Assessing

Mr.M J Aravind, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 222/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 48Section 57

that section 147 would not give arbitrary power to the AO to reopen the assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion which cannot be per se reason to reopen. It was also held that there is a difference between power to review and power to reassess ... initiated in accordance with Section 147 of the said Act. The Tribunal held that reopening of an assessment on the basis of a mere change of opinion was not justified. The submission before the High Court was that it was not a case of change of opinion by the Assessing

M/S. Centum Electronics Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised

ITA 946/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Centum Electronics Ltd. #44, Ground Floor, Deputy Commissioner Of Khb Industrial Area Vs. Income-Tax Yelahanka New Town Circle-2(1)(1) Bengaluru 560 106 Bengaluru Pan No : Aakcs7429L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Bengaluru-2 Dated 28.2.2019 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are Reproduced As Follows:- That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In 1. So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 2. On Facts In Justifying The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Order Against M/S. Solectron Ems India Ltd Even Though The Said Entity Does Not Exist On The Date Of The Passing The Order. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 3. On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Assessment Order Against A Non-Existing Person. 4. That The Order U/S 147 Is Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R
Section 10BSection 147Section 40

that income of Solectron EMS India Ltd has escaped assessment without any tangible material and the formation of such a belief is a mere change of opinion which is not permissible in law. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in law and 8. on facts

M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. India Branch, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2572/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2572/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, Mahatma Gandhi International Taxation, Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 31.12.2015 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. —India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant'), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Learned Ao') Dated October 15, 2019 Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 23, 2019 Issued By The Drp U/S 144C(5) Of The Act ('The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 156Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)

Erred in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act'), basis a mere change of opinion in respect of transactions/dealings in respect of stream of income which has already been considered in detail by the AO and the TPO during the original assessment proceedings

Ferani Hotels Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4 (1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 7610/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80I

finding that no infirmity in the action of Assessing Officer where A.O. had second thoughts on the same material which is, in fact, mere change of opinion which cannot form the basis for reopen or reassessment. The CIT (A) erred that A.O. has no power to review and reassessment

Krishna Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 38(3), New Delhi

ITA 6356/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

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

Gulshan Mercantile Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Muzaffarnagar

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6679/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Gulshan Mercantile Urban Vs Acit Cooperative Bank Ltd. Circle-1 129-130C, New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar, Muzaffarnagar Uttar Pradesh Pan-Aaajg0808L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Adv Respondent By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2021

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 80P(2)(d)

justified in sustaining the penalty. He submitted that the assessee neither concealed any income nor any inaccurate particulars were furnished. It was mere change of opinion, he further submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not considered the submissions of the assessee in the right perspective. He submitted that the claim

M/S Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 6022/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri KVSR. Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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 re-open. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review ... 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

Saraswati Realtech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3269/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Saraswati Realtech P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, B-23, Ground Floor, Ward-22(3), Pushpanjali Enclave, New Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan: Aamcs0744G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Jain, Ca & Shri Hemant Pahwa, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, but, this does not imply that the AO can reopen an assessment on mere change of opinion. The concept of change of opinion must be treated as an inbuilt test to the check the abuse of power. Hence, after April

Sjm International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(20, New Delhi

ITA 3762/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Senior DR
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 68

change of opinion has held that it would give arbitrary power to the AO to reopen assessment u/s 147 on the basis of mere “change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to reopen. Operative part of the judgment is extracted for ready perusal as under :- “6. On going ... believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer 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

The ACIT, Circle, Ratlam vs. M/S. Mahalaxmi Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam

ITA 956/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

such efforts were made and just based on the information received from VAT Department notice was issued. It has been consistently held that mere change of opinion cannot be a basis to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Act. We find support from in the judgment ... Mahalaxmi Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. AO has not brought out any fresh material on record therefore reopening was done on mere change of opinion. Therefore, the appeal on these grounds is allowed. 25. From perusal of the above finding as well as the settled judicial precedence and our finding

The ACIT Circle, Ratlam vs. M/S. Mahalaxmi Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam

ITA 955/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

such efforts were made and just based on the information received from VAT Department notice was issued. It has been consistently held that mere change of opinion cannot be a basis to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Act. We find support from in the judgment ... Mahalaxmi Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. AO has not brought out any fresh material on record therefore reopening was done on mere change of opinion. Therefore, the appeal on these grounds is allowed. 25. From perusal of the above finding as well as the settled judicial precedence and our finding