← 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

West Bengal Electronics Industry Development Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1591/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2026AY 2013-2014
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24(1)Section 250

against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the reopening proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act which is based on mere change of opinion and also without satisfying the conditions as provided in proviso to section 147 of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee ... 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. 6. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review

West Bengal Electronics Industry Development Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1590/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24(1)Section 250

against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the reopening proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act which is based on mere change of opinion and also without satisfying the conditions as provided in proviso to section 147 of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee ... 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. 6. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review

Chand Jewellers, Nakodar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

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

ITA 574/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 574/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chand Jewellers, Bazar Sarafan Vs. Ito-Ward Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [Pan:-Aahfc5908J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Bajaj, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

notice under section 148 of the Act are illegal, void ab initio, and unsustainable in law, as the same were based on mere change of opinion and absence of fresh tangible material, and are thus vitiated. 3. That the addition of Rs. 1,03,83,030/- made under section

Adhi Kumara Guru, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-22(1), Chennai

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

ITA 120/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaमाननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम"

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, Advocate for Mr.G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

submit that [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), to submit that the second reopening, being based on a mere change of opinion, the second reopening, being based on a mere change of opinion, the second reopening, being based on a mere change of opinion, is unsustainable in law and liable ... powers to the Assessing Officer to re would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot

DCIT, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 4047/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

ACIT (2023) 459 ITR 16 (Bom) wherein it was held that there is no ground for reopening of the assessment on mere change of opinion where the issue at hand was already dealt with during the original assessment even if the assessment order does not specifically dealt with that issue

DCIT, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 4046/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

ACIT (2023) 459 ITR 16 (Bom) wherein it was held that there is no ground for reopening of the assessment on mere change of opinion where the issue at hand was already dealt with during the original assessment even if the assessment order does not specifically dealt with that issue

Sudarshan Jeans Private Limited, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ambala

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1070/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)

words 'reason to believe', failing which Sec. 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. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power

Shri Vipul Bansal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5628/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 69C

assessment even beyond four years. Accordingly, the learned DR submitted that the reopening was based on tangible material, was not a case of mere change of opinion, and the conditions prescribed under section 147 were duly satisfied. 30. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the material available ... Officer had formed any opinion on this issue during the original assessment. 36. In such circumstances, the reopening cannot be characterized as a mere change of opinion. Where the Assessing Officer did not have occasion to examine a particular issue in the original assessment due to absence of relevant material

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 344/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

necessary for assessment, as mandatorily required by Ist proviso to section 147; (b) that the reopening of the assessment is based on a mere change of opinion on the issues which were already examined by the Assessing Officer in depth during the original assessment proceedings under section ... Learned AR of the assessee has filed a detailed written submission, which reads as under : “Reopening proceedings u/s. 147, being based on mere change of opinion and the notice u/s. 148 dated 13.09.2018, having been issued beyond the period of four years from

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 343/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

necessary for assessment, as mandatorily required by Ist proviso to section 147; (b) that the reopening of the assessment is based on a mere change of opinion on the issues which were already examined by the Assessing Officer in depth during the original assessment proceedings under section ... Learned AR of the assessee has filed a detailed written submission, which reads as under : “Reopening proceedings u/s. 147, being based on mere change of opinion and the notice u/s. 148 dated 13.09.2018, having been issued beyond the period of four years from

Arcoy Industries (India) Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 427/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering the reassessment rent proceedings u/s.147 as valid when such proceedings are on account of mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and without any new tangible material on record ... appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 as valid when such proceedings are on account of mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and without any new tangible material on record

Arcoy Industries (India) Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby

ITA 426/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering the reassessment rent proceedings u/s.147 as valid when such proceedings are on account of mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and without any new tangible material on record ... appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 as valid when such proceedings are on account of mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and without any new tangible material on record

Arcoy Industries (India) Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 425/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering the reassessment rent proceedings u/s.147 as valid when such proceedings are on account of mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and without any new tangible material on record ... appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 as valid when such proceedings are on account of mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and without any new tangible material on record

Arcoy Industries (India) Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 424/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering the reassessment rent proceedings u/s.147 as valid when such proceedings are on account of mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and without any new tangible material on record ... appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 as valid when such proceedings are on account of mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and without any new tangible material on record

DCIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5394/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 250Section 30Section 32Section 40Section 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

Estate of Vandravan P Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5401/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Shah
Section 147Section 148Section 35A

validity of the reassessment, specifically contending that the specifically contending that the reopening was based on a mere reopening was based on a mere change of opinion. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee change of opinion. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee change of opinion. During the appellate proceedings

DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2445/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

failure on part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts; (b) Impugned reassessment proceedings have been initiated on mere 'change of opinion'; (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without ... assessee. On this ground alone, the reassessment proceedings is invalid and bad in law, Re (b): Initiation of reassessment proceedings on mere change of opinion invalid In the present case, undisputedly no new material information came to the possession of the assessing officer subsequent to the completion of the original

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

failure on part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts; (b) Impugned reassessment proceedings have been initiated on mere 'change of opinion'; (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without ... assessee. On this ground alone, the reassessment proceedings is invalid and bad in law, Re (b): Initiation of reassessment proceedings on mere change of opinion invalid In the present case, undisputedly no new material information came to the possession of the assessing officer subsequent to the completion of the original

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

failure on part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts; (b) Impugned reassessment proceedings have been initiated on mere 'change of opinion'; (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without ... assessee. On this ground alone, the reassessment proceedings is invalid and bad in law, Re (b): Initiation of reassessment proceedings on mere change of opinion invalid In the present case, undisputedly no new material information came to the possession of the assessing officer subsequent to the completion of the original

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2442/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

failure on part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts; (b) Impugned reassessment proceedings have been initiated on mere 'change of opinion'; (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without ... assessee. On this ground alone, the reassessment proceedings is invalid and bad in law, Re (b): Initiation of reassessment proceedings on mere change of opinion invalid In the present case, undisputedly no new material information came to the possession of the assessing officer subsequent to the completion of the original