“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

Gnana Kathir Singarayar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

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

ITA 5503/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Magnum Equity The Acit Circle 4 (3), बनाम/ Broking Ltd., Room No. 638, 6Th Vs. D-30, Empire Mahal, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 806, Dr. B A Road, M.K. Road, Khodadad, Mumbai - 400023 Mumbai - 400014 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5661N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhle, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 88E

information has been found or identified by the AO to make re-assessment proceedings valid and it is only a mere change of opinion and relied on the judicial decisions and written submissions and prayed for allowing grounds of appeal of the Assessee. Contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order ... which are available on the record in the original assessment and no new material is available for re- assessment and it is only mere change of opinion. We find the assessee is a public limited company and the Books Of Accounts are Audited under the provisions of Companies

Kamaluddin Hamed Salmani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1284/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 45

Rs.49,83,339/- filed u/sec.139(1) of the Act dated 05.08.2016. He submitted that, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on mere change of opinion without providing any new facts, documents or reasons in his possession and issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 which is not illegal

Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal Ito, Ward – 2(3)(4), Flat No.304, 3Rd Floor, Room No.613, Vatika Township, Near Model, Vs. Aaaykar Bhavan, Township, Parvat Patia Majura Gate, Surat - 395010. Surat - 395002. Pan No. Adspk 6097N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rasesh, CA

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

reassessment, contended that the assessee, while assailing the reassessment, contended that the assessee, while assailing the reassessment, contended that the same was a mere change of opinion and devoid of any live nexus same was a mere change of opinion and devoid of any live nexus same was a mere ... plea of the assessee that the constrained to observe that the plea of the assessee that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion stands bereft of reopening was based on a mere change of opinion stands bereft reopening was based on a mere change of opinion stands

Smt. Pushpa Agrawal, Indore vs. ITO Ward 5(2), Indore, Aaykar Bhawan, Opposite White Church, Residency Area

Appeal is allowed

ITA 499/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

humble opinion, has not brought in any new/fresh material on record. Absence of new/fresh material for reopening of the case would amount to mere change in opinion. Further, 2. CIT. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (187 Taxmann 312) SC b. Jal Hotel Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (184 Taxman 1) Delhi ¢ Cartini ... case, in such situation is not justified. 7. Itis now a settled law by virtue of various Judicial pronouncements that reopening based on mere change in opinion is bad-in-law and void ab-initio. B.M. Associates v, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Circle 29(2), Mumbai (90 taxmann.com

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 497/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Assessing Officer, he could not have reopened the case for assessment year 2015-16. Thus, the decision to reopen the assessment was a mere change of opinion and nothing else. 42. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Omprakash

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1565/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1555/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Respondent: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3484/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat Shah, Shri. B S SharmaFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

operation of Thane Ghodbandar Road also. 20. Ground No.1 of the assessee pertains to the legal contention that the reopening is based on mere change of opinion since the AO during the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) has raised queried with regard to the impugned additions and has accepted the submissions

Jain Textile Industries, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed as devoid of

ITA 932/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Jain Textile Industries, V Assistant Commissioner Of 38, Milestone, Behrampur S Income Tax, Circle-1(1) Road, Village Khandsa, Hsiiddc Building, 4Th Floor, Gurgaon, Haryana Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon Pan: Aabfj8405F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Bhupender Jit Kumar, Adv, Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Adv & Sh. Tushar Kalra, Adv Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

jurisdiction by the AO under section 147 of the Act, because the reopening in the case of the Appellant is based on a mere change of opinion. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity ... reassessment and the A.O. has not applied his mind and reasons have been recorded based on the borrowed satisfaction which is nothing but merely change of opinion of the A.O. 7. Per contra, the ld. Department's Representative submitted that the issue taken up for reassessment where never examined

Nkc Projects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT Delhi-4, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2804/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

view after considering these replies of the assessee, now alleging that the AO has not made proper and adequate enquiry is nothing but mere change of opinion on the part of the PCIT. Once the AO has made the queries and necessary replies were furnished, it cannot be said that

DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi vs. Parveen Aggarwal, Gurgaon

Accordingly the same are hereby upheld. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Parveen Aggarwal, Vs Acit, Ma-1/7, 3D, Garden Central Circle-14, Estate, M.G.Road, Gurgaon New Delhi Haryana-122002. Pan-Aahpa0660R Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs Parveen Aggarwal, Central Circle-14, Ma-1/7, 3D, Garden New Delhi Estate, M.G.Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aahpa0660R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri K.Sampath, Adv. & Shri V.Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Cross-Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 27, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 28.11.2022 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-27/10482/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dt. 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita Nos.178 & 197/Del/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

sale consideration credited in the joint bank account. Ld. AR thus, submits that re-opening of assessment based on assumption and presumptions and merely change of opinion which deserves to be hold bad in law. 8. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR vehemently supported the order ... appellant's contention that this issue was examined during assessment proceedings u/s 153C-r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and it is mere change of opinion does not found to be acceptable as: i. assessment u/s 153C of the Act is based on seized incriminating documents/material during search operation

Parveen Aggarwal, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi

Accordingly the same are hereby upheld. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 178/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Balachandra Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 989/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 V. Balchandra Builders Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.10 Venkataratnam Nagar, Adyar, Income Tax, Chennai- 600 020. Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaacb6727A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate, : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28.07.2025 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

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 ... 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

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1038/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

that on the facts of the case, the impugned order is at best capable of being classified as a case of mere change of opinion, and the 148 notice issued on 30.07.2022 after a lapse of 6 years, although the assessment was completed ... that on the facts of the case, the impugned order is at best capable of being classified as a case of mere change of opinion, and the 148 notice issued on 29.07.2022 after a lapse of 6 years, although the original assessment made

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1037/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1036/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(2) (Now DCIT, Cent.Cir. 4(2)), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1035/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2220/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

stated that for both the cases, the Ld. AOs’ actions suffered from a legal fatality as they were based on mere change of opinion and borrowed satisfaction. The Ld. AR submitted a summarized version of his detailed written arguments, which may be reproduced to understand the assessee’s stand point ... held that by reason of section 147 if the ITO exercises its jurisdiction for initiating a proceeding for reassessment only upon mere change of opinion, the same may be held to be unconstitutional. We are, therefore, of the opinion that section 147 does not postulate conferment of power upon

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2219/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

J vs. Exports, Maduraivs.DCIT, Ncc-2, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2059/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2059/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14 Jvs Export, Deputy Commissioner Of No.32, Sarojini Street, Vs. Income Tax, Chinna Chokkikulam, Non-Corporate Circle-2 Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 002. [Pan:Aabfj2836N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A) For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Vide Order Dated 21.05.2025. 2. The Preliminary Issue Raised By The Assessee Is Challenging The Validity Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction For Reopening The Assessment In The Instant Case. 3. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Had Filed Its

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 43(5)Section 73(1)