“reopening of assessment”

ReassessmentSections 147-151Sections 147-1514,262 judgments

The decision most relied on for reopening of assessment is GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (259 ITR 19), cited in 1,349 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reopening of assessment

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO

259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court

1,349

citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court

1,030

citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO

236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court

862

citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.

216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court

854

citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.

331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court

694

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.

380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court

689

citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal

444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court

524

citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court

471

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

Judgments citing reopening of assessment

Prem Parkash, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 54(1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 8356/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year 2017-18 Prem Prakash Vs. Income Tax Officer A-32, 2Nd Floor, Amar Ward- 54(1) Colony, Lajpat Nagar-4, Delhi New Delhi-110024 Pan No.Agwpp9248D Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Respondent Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 148

appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. Ground No.1 of grounds of appeal of the assessee is in respect of challenging the reopening of assessment by issue of notice u/s.148 and since no arguments were advanced on this ground, this ground is treated as not pressed and the same

Nileshkumar M Bhalodi, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Ms Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

grievances of the Assessee. The solitary grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act without appreciating that there was ITA No.7/Rjt/2026/AY 2015-16 Nileshkumar M. Bhalodi no valid "reason to believe

Surendranagar District Co Op Producers Union Limited, Surendranagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Surendranagar Circle

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 429/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 429/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Surendranagar District Co. Op. Acit, Circle, Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Surendranagar-363035 Plot No.249, Phase 2 Gidc Market Yard Circle, Sursagar Dairy, Wadhwan Road, Surendranagar-363035 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 09/10/2025, Refixed For Clarification On 03.11.2025 & Finally Heard On 02.02.2026 : 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

context. Besides the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Katlary Karayana(supra) is in the context of reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act wherein the Hon’ble Court has examined whether income has escaped assessment or not. Hence, this judgment

Kuldip Singh, Ranchi vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RAN/2025[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuldip Singh…………………….……….……...................……….……Appellant The Avenue Vishnupuri Marg, Upper Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. [Pan: Agjps6921P] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi…...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 06.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

jurisdiction, and has mechanically set aside the matter, which is not permissible. In view of the above facts and settled legal position the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is bad in law. Since the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 22.11.2019 is barred

Gulmohar Towers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal in the ensuing paras. The only issue raised in ground no.1 is against invalid reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act made by the AO. The assessee has also assailed the order of Id. CIT (A) simply setting aside ... filing the return of income and also requested the Id. AO to supply the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. The reasons were accordingly supplied by the Id. AO to the assessee. The case of the assessee was reopened after the Id. AO received information from the investigation wing that

Mr. Saurabh Anil Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8437/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailmr. Saurabh Anil Gandhi A-502 Chanakya Chs Ltd. Mahavir Nagar, Opp. Ekta Nagar, New Link Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai- 400067 ............... Appellant Pan: Aelpg7302J

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari a/wFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 35Section 80Section 80G

found in search of third party and thereby the re-opening proceeding is bad in law. 4. upholding the action of AO of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act, which was undertaken merely on the basis of statement recorded during the search/ survey proceedings of a third ... general in nature. Therefore, the same does not require specific adjudication. 4. Grounds no.2-4, raised in assessee’s appeal, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment, were neither argued nor any documentary evidence in support of these grounds was furnished during the hearing. 3 Accordingly, Grounds no.2-4, raised in assessee

Devanshi Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 7007/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardevanshi Sharma Ito, Ward 34(1)(1) 216, 2Nd Floor, Kautaliya Bhawan, Sagar Jyoti, Plot No. 18, Vs. 6Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Cmvpk 6007 Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Shashank Mehta Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.10.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Legal Issue, Challenging The Validity Of The Order Passed U/S. 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) As Also The Notice Issued U/S. 148 Of The Act. Since, The Aforesaid Issue Raised By The Assessee Is A Purely Legal & Jurisdictional Issue Going To The Root Of The Matter & Affecting The Validity Of The Proceedings Initiated U/S. 147 Of The Act, We Are Inclined To Address The Issue At The Very Outset.

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

exempt Short Term Capital Gain (‘STCG’ for short) or Short Term Capital Loss (‘STCL’ for short). Based on such information, the A.O. reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act under the old regime by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 28.04.2021. By virtue of the decision ... First appellate authority, however, rejected the submissions of the assessee on the issue and upheld the validity of reopening of assessment. 7. Before us, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that in terms with section 151(ii) of the Act, the competent authority who can grant approval/sanction for passing

Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 591/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.591/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hasmukh Ugarchand The Ito बनाम/ Gadhecha, Huf Ward-5(2)(2) V/S. 3Rd Floor, Anjalee House Ahmedabad – 380 015 Cg Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaahg 7194 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 26/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, Huf Vs. Ito Asstt.Year : 2013-14 2 “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & In The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Order Of The Ao In Reopening Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69C

Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, HUF vs. ITO Asstt.Year : 2013-14 8 challenged these additions both on merits and on the jurisdictional ground that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was bad in law. Since the legal issue regarding the validity of reopening goes to the root of the matter, therefore ... wrongly observed that no assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act and hence the AO proceeded to reopen the assessment on the wrong premises, whereas, the original assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act. Hence, the AO erred in reopening the assessment despite

Elegance Reality, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2637/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 153CSection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 3(1)

Bansal [469 ITR 46] submitted. 3. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held the assessment time barred when the documents/evidence relied upon to reopen the assessment were handed over to the appellant after 30 days of issuance of notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act as mandated by Apex Court ... deemed to be notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act as per the amended provisions (new regime) relating to the reopening of assessment which had come into operation w.e.f. 01.04.2021. That, thereafter, in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agrawal (supra

Rakesh Jain As the Legal Heir of Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-1 Palghar, Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7677/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 159Section 271FSection 69A

record a written submission dated 05.02.2026 addressed to the Hon’ble Bench, wherein it was contended that the issue involved pertains to reopening of assessment under section 148 in the case of a deceased person and consequent addition. 22. In the written submissions, reliance was placed upon the decision

Rakesh Jain As the Legal Heir of Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -1 Palghar, Thane

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7676/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 159Section 271FSection 69A

Rakesh Jain As the Legal Heir of Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1 Palghar, Thane

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7675/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 159Section 271FSection 69A

Rakesh Jain As the Legal Heir of Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1, Palghar, Thane

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7674/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 159Section 271FSection 69A

Nova Elevators Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-13(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7248/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnova Elevators Private Vs Ito -13(1)(1), Mumbai Limited Maharashtra-400020 402, Dimple Apts., 4E, Asha Nagar, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101 Pan: Aadcn0305K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Patel, Ca Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr Ar) Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-51, Mumbai [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2014-15, Date Of Order 12.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Income-Tax Officer Ward-13(1)(1), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Patel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (SR AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

mind or a live nexus to the assessee's own transaction. Accordingly, the reassessment is invalid in law. 4. Additional Ground on reopening of assessment beyond jurisdiction a. The Assessing Officer erred both in law and on facts in reopening the assessment under section 148 merely on borrowed satisfaction, without

Rr Marketing, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1218/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 282

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Raghavan Nambath Menon, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Ward Intl. Taxation 1(2), Bmtc Building, Koramangala, Bengaluru

In the result, I pass the following:-

ITA 278/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: CA Suresh Muthukrishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT D.R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 68

there is time limit of 6 years available to the assessing officer for reopening of assessment if the income escaping assessment is more than Rs.1 lakh. In this case the income escaping assessment is more than Rs.1 lakh and the time limit of six years ends on 31/03/2022

Rahul Meka, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward International Taxation-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J – CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 147Section 45Section 54Section 54FSection 68

notice under section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assesses from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments Sri krishna (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 87 Taxman 315/221 ITR 538 (SC)/[1996] 9 SCC 534. A table representing the prescription under

Suman Jagannath Sankhe, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41.4.4, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 7528/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 68

under the new regime. He submitted that the original notice issued under the old regime was dated 15/05/2021, reopening the assessment. Thereafter, the said notice was treated as a deemed notice as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Ashish ... issuing a notice under section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assessees from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments Sri krishna (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 87 Taxman 315/221 ITR 538 (SC)/[1996] 9 SCC 534. A table representing the prescription under

Late Chanchal Hiralal Shah (Represented by Legal Heir Rohit Hiralal Shah), Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6349/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

issuing a notice under section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assessees from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments Sri krishna (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 87 Taxman 315/221 ITR 538 (SC)/[1996] 9 SCC 534. A table representing the prescription under

Gedalia Multirading Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6056/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 115Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250(6)Section 68

appeal.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that, in Ground No. 1, the assessee is raising a legal issue challenging the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the new regime. He submitted that the assessee was served with notice u/s 148A(b) on 11/03/2022, accompanied only ... recorded. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not provided with the report of enquiry and the materials that were considered for reopening the assessment. The Ld. AR placed on record a screenshot of the ITBA portal showing that only the notice was issued without any annexures/information being attached