← 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

Sourabh Sharma, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

The appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 342/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253

assessee the Ld. AO has completed assessment on the returned income of Rs.2,62,890/-, thus the re-opening of assessment is mere change of opinion. 2.2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO eared in issuing notice u/s 148A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary vs. M/S Virgo Properties Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1181/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

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

Panaji wherein the CIT(A) allowed the appeal in respect of LTCG holding that the reassessment proceedings was initiated based on mere change of opinion without bringing any tangible material. "In view of the above, I am of the considerate opinion that it is a settled position that reassessment under ... appellant and said enhancement was on account of same long term capital only. Thus, reopening assessment proceedings, on very same issue amounts to mere change in opinion and not permitted by law. Accordingly, additional grounds of appeal are allowed'. Revenue's Response: In the course of original assessment proceedings

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Year Objection No

ITA 2834/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Faroog IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 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 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

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 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 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

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2823/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 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 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

The New India Assurance Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 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 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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

Year Objection No

ITA 2620/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Faroog IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 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 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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2618/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2616/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 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 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

Vision & Vision Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. Acut/ DCIT Circle 1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 183/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.183/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vision & Vision Pvt. Ltd.…….……………............................……….……Appellant Block No.2, Ambika Tower, Main Road Shastri Nagar, Jamshedpur – 831005. [Pan: Aabcv5072B] Vs. Acit/Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur ..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit), Ranchi, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 31.03.2025 For A.Y. 2018–19. The Assessee Challenges The Legality & Validity Of The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Pcit & The Consequent Revision Of The Reassessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Dated 27.03.2023. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018–19 Declaring Total Income Of ₹11,95,030. The Return Was Initially Processed U/S 143(1). Later, Based On Information Shared By The Ddit (Investigation), Kolkata, It Was Alleged That The Assessee Had Received An Accommodation Entry Of ₹1,18,61,425 From M/S Kuldeepak Enterprises During The Year. On This Basis, The Ao Reopened The

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

thoroughly examined the issue and accepted the explanation, the Ld. PCIT’s direction to re- examine the same issue amounts to mere change of opinion, which is not permissible u/s 263 of the Act. From the discussion in forgoing paragraph, we find that the AO conducted adequate and proper inquiry

Geeta Sharma, Sunam vs. ITO, Sunam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Prem Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 149

officer the assessee specifically raised the point of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, contending that the notice of reopening was prompted by a mere change of opinion. The AO rejected plea of the assessee but the AAC accepted this ground and also held the reassessment

ACIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Glorishine Impex Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2209/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(5)Section 72

substantial monetary impost. It therefore presupposes, at the threshold, the clear existence of under reported income as legislatively defined. To convert a mere change of opinion on the head under which a disclosed and accepted loss is to be classified into “under reporting of income" would be to stretch

Omnitel Technologies Private Limited, Gurugram Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(1), Gurugram, Gurugram Haryana

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

ITA 326/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Omnitel Technologies Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Ltd., B-220, Florence Marvel, Gurugram Sushant Lok-Iii, Sector 57, Haryana Gurugram (Haryana) Pin: 122 002 Pan :Aafca2421B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

obligation, being compensation paid for delayed delivery of goods. The audit balance sheet, at page 14 of paper books, mentioned late delivery charges. Mere change of opinion was no ground for reopening the assessment. 4 5.1 Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana

Arjun Oil Traders, Surat vs. ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

ITA 147/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.147/Srt/2024

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 250

already available in the assessment record. In such circumstances, it is a settled law that re-assessment cannot be initiated on a mere change of opinion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC) held as under

Monotech Systems Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1021/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. J. Prabhakar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 147Section 234BSection 36Section 37(1)Section 45

tangible information coming to the AO's possession, the reopening of the assessment based on the same set of facts amounts to a mere change of opinion, which is not legally sustainable. The ld.AR drew our attention to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 21.10.2019, forming part ... Account of the year amounting to Rs.4,34,44,057/-, which, according to the ld.AR, amounts to a mere change of opinion. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity. “The Assessee filed the return of income on 07.11.2017 admitting an income

Pushkar Vishwas, Bulandshahr vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3), Bulandshahr

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 5661/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singha.Yr. : 2011-12 Pushkar Vishwas, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca Vaibhav Goel, Ward 3(3), Bulandshahr, 75, Navyug Market, Uttar Pradesh 1St Floor, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Aezpv4597E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vaibhav Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

Bench of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 256 ITR 1, has held that mere change of opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen proceedings without anything further. It was held that if the Assessing Officer ... clear that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion. The above said decision was duly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Kelvinator of India

Shujaat Husain, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(4), Noida

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

ITA 1299/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 263

Officer. On the contrary, the Assessment Order was passed after making detailed enquiries. b) That proceedings u/s 263 cannot be initiated on a mere change of opinion. c) Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be invoked for making fishing and roving enquiries or for re-verification

Greenline Ecofab Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1373/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1373/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Greenline Ecofab Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 406, Jeevan Deep, Opp. Sub- Income-Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Vs. Jail, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 Surat, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg 2881 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 68

truly disclose material facts, same issue could not be considered for assumption of jurisdiction to reopen assessment as it would amount to mere change of opinion. 7.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd. (supra) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where assessee-company ... mention in the reasons recorded of any such failure on part of assessee in the instant case. Hence, reopening is based on mere change of opinion on the same set of facts. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited supra, we hold that the notice issued

Devendra Kumar Deshmukh, Durg vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed in terms of our aforestated observations

ITA 378/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 378/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

which the assesse has duly cooperated. 2. That the order under-section 263 is bad in law as it is based on mere change of opinion and amounts to substituting the learned PCIT's view over that of the learned Assessing Officer without establishing any error that is prejudicial

Hitesh Kumar Prithviraj Kawad, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non-Corporten Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)Section 54F

principles of reassessment by no disposing the objections to reopening of assessment. 2. The NFAC erred in re-opening the assessment based on mere change of opinion. The NFAC re-opened assessment based on the information already at their disposal (i.e. Submission made during original assessment proceedings ... merits by the following observations: “As regard the other issue that the re-opening has been done on the basis of ‘mere change of opinion, it is a settled issue that for ‘change of opinion’, it is important that ‘opinion should be formed at the initial stage. Mere possession