A. M. SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) THE decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of other two appeals being IT Appeal Nos. 68 and 69 of 2001 because all these three appeals involve identical question and secondly they are between the same parties. ( 2 ) THIS is an appeal filed by Revenue (CIT) under Section 260a of the IT Act against an order dt. 12th July, 2001, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in ITA Nos. 657, 658 and 687/ind/1996. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law:1. Whether keeping in view Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the reopening of assessments under section 147 was not proper, as the reasons recorded by the AO are merely change of opinion? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in directing the AO to allow deduction under Sections 80hh and 80-I, even if express conditions laid down under these sections are not fulfilled by the assessee? ( 3 ) HEARD Shri A. P. Patankar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri G. M. Chafekar, learned senior Counsel with Shri D. S. Kale, learned Counsel for the respondent. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that in case, if question No. 1 is answered against the appellant (Revenue) and in favour of respondent, i. e. , assessee, then in that event there would be no need to answer the question No. 2 on merits. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the assessee at the outset, brought to our notice a decision of Full Bench of Delhi High Court, reported in CIT v. Kalvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 174 CTR (Del) (FB) 617: (2002) 256itr 1 (Del) (FB) and contended that the question No. 1 referred supra be answered in favour of assessee by placing reliance upon it. According to learned Counsel, the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in express terms examined the issue involved in this case, i. e. , the issue involved in question No. 1 and after examining the legal position as it stood prior to amendment in Section 147 w. e. f. 1st April, 1989 and subsequent thereto have held that mere change of opinion of AO is no ground for reassessment. In other words, the question whether mere change of opinion of AO can be made a ground to seek reassessment after amendment in Section 147 from 1st April, 1989 in Kalvinator's case (supra) by the Full Bench of Delhi High Court and it was held that it cannot be made a ground to reopen the assessment. Speaking for the Bench, the learned Chief Justice S. B. Sinha (as His Lordships then was) held as under:the scope and effect of Section 147 as substituted w. e. f. 1st April, 1989, by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, and subsequently amended by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, w. e. f. 1st April, 1989, as also of Sections 148 to 152 have been elaborated in Circular No. 549, dt. 31st Oct. , 1989. A perusal of Clause 7. 2 of the said circular makes it clear that the amendments had been carried out only with a view to allay fears that the omission of the expression 'reason to believe' from Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen past assessments on a mere change of opinion. It is, therefore, evident that even according to the CBDT a mere change of opinion cannot form the basis for reopening a completed assessment. ( 6 ) WE respectfully agree with the aforesaid principle of law laid down by Full Bench of Delhi High Court as in our opinion, it is in accord with the legislative intent and the scheme of the Act in dealing with the cases relating to reassessment. In the aforesaid case, their Lordships in detail examined the true scope of Section 147 ibid as it stood prior to amendment w. e. f. 1st April, 1989 and subsequent to it and then categorically held that mere change of opinion of AO cannot be made basis for reopening of the concluded assessments and that amendment carried out in Section 147 w. e. f. 1st April, 1989 has not altered this position. ( 7 ) IN view of aforesaid decision, since we are in complete agreement with the view so lucidly expressed by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Kalvinator's case (supra) and hence, we answer the question No. 1 against the appellant and in favour of assessee. ( 7 ) IN view of aforesaid decision, since we are in complete agreement with the view so lucidly expressed by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Kalvinator's case (supra) and hence, we answer the question No. 1 against the appellant and in favour of assessee. In other words, since we concur with the view taken by the Tribunal which in our opinion, is in accord with the view taken by Delhi High Court in the case of Kalvinator India (supra) and hence, we answer question No. 1 in favour of assessee and against the Revenue (appellant ). ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of foregoing discussion, we answer question No. 1 against the appellant and in favour of assessee. As a consequence, as observed supra, we do not consider it necessary to decide the second question on its merits which in our opinion becomes academic in nature. We, therefore, decline to examine and answer the second question on merits and leave it to answer in any other case as and when occasion arises. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. .