“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

Parag Motilal Savla, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4221/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69

following grounds in this appeal: “1. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the additional ground raised by the appellant challenging the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the 1.T Act, 1961 by issue of notice u/s 148 dt. 31.03.2021, claiming that as per law, the assessment should ... 144B of the I. Tax Act 1961, inspite of the Id AO failing to first dispose the objections raised by the appellant to reopening of assessment, which failure on the part of the Id AO results in the asst. order framed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B to be invalid

Ajay Kalishchandra Bohra, Daman vs. PCIT, Valsad

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 549/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 549/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Ajay Kalishchandra Bohra Principal Commissioner Of Income- 1, Plot No.22B, Daman Industrial Tax, Valsad, 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak बनाम Estate, Somnath Road, Dabhel, Arcade, Shantinagar, Tithal Road, Vs Daman-396 215 Valsad-396 001 [Pan : Ackpb 2567 R] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 147Section 254(1)Section 263

erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that case of assessee was reopened for assessment year 2016-17 as well as for assessment year 2017-18 and reassessment order was passed in both the assessment years. However, show cause notice ... Assessing Officer. 6. We find that Ld. PCIT while invoking his jurisdictional also relied upon the same information, which was a basis of reopening of assessment. We find that 5 Ajay K Bohra Assessing Officer during assessment has made requisite enquiries and explanation with regard to sales to Unique Polypack

Dineshkumar Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1956/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M S Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

made on the basis of deposits made in bank account. 3. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in reopening of assessment as reasons recorded are incorrect. 4. The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is bad and illegal as no addition is made for reasons recorded ... reopening of assessment. 5. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in making addition U/S 68 of the Act, though no books of accounts are maintained. Dineshkumar Jashubhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year–2011-12 6. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

Vgu-Technology Business Incubator Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption Jaipur, Jaipur

28. In view of the above finding, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) confirming the impugned assessment framed by the Assessing Officer is hereby set aside

ITA 799/JPR/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jan 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

Kavita Samtani vs DCIT the appropriate procedural routes as stipulated in the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment reinforces that the reopening of assessments based on search materials must follow the provisions of Section 153C, ensuring that procedural safeguards and statutory limitations are respected." 1.2.2 In the case of Shyam ... question of any abatement since no proceedings are pending. In such cases, where the assessments already stand completed, the AO can reopen the assessments or reassessments already made without following the provisions of S.s 147, 148 and 151 of the Act and determine the total income of the assessee

M/S Skyline E Tech, Kochi vs. ACIT Circle 2(2), Kochi

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

ITA 269/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 47

assessment on account of gratuity of Rs.2,26,052 and leave encashment expenditure of Rs.41,160. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the reopening of assessment and confirmed the addition/disallowance u/s. 43B of the Act. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 17. The ld. AR challenged ... action of reopening of assessment as well as on merits, filed a paperbook containing 25 pages which also include detailed written submissions. It was contested that reopening is invalid. 18. The ld. DR supported the order of lower authorities. 19. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused

M/S Skyline E Tech, Kochi vs. ACIT Circle 2(2), Kochi

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

ITA 268/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 47

Shri Kamaluddin Popatlal Surani, Vapi vs. PCIT, Valsad

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

ITA 666/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.666/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Kamaluddin Popatlal Surani, Vs. The Pcit, A/12, Golden Park, Kabrastan Road, Valsad Vapi - 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajyps2442M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyaya, Ar Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/01/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 253(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 56(2)(x)

fact to revise appellant’s assessment u/s 263 of the IT Act, ignoring the fact and law that even AO’s reopening of assessment for AY.2018-19is contrary to the provisions of the law. ITA No.666/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Kamaluddin Popatlal Surani 2. On facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT, Valsad ... fact to revie appellant’s assessment u/s 263 of the IT Act, ignoring the fact and law that even AO’s reopening of assessment for AY.2018-19 is contrary to the provisions of the law. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 27 days in terms

Trade Kings, New Delhi vs. ITO, Civic Center, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3890/DEL/2024[18-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 147

both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. Leaned counsel representing assessee does not press for its ground challenging validity of the reopening of assessment. 4. Next comes the sole substantive issue on merits between the parties wherein the learned lower authorities have assessed the assessee at the rate

Sangeeta Devi Anchalia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Ito Sangeeta Devi Anchalia 2, Gariahat Road (South) 31-C, Jhowtalla Road, Park Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin, Cicus, Kolkata-700017, Vs. Kolkata-700068, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpa0199C Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

ratio laid down in the above decisions and the facts of the instant case at hand, we are of the view that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act is invalid and void ab initio. Accordingly, the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and also the consequent order

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

Infinity.com Financial Securities Lul. v. ACIT: [2022] 137 taxmann.com 503 (Bom)- SLP dismissed by SC in 290 Taman 126 (SC) Thus, the impugned reopening of assessment on the very same set of facts, without any fresh tangible information being referred to in the reasons recorded and also without any fresh ... consequent order be quashed. 6. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR submits that Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue of reopening of assessment taken by the assessee and therefore, Rule 27 cannot be invoked. He drew our attention to the observations made

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

Sanguine Media Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-3, Chennai

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

ITA 936/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 936/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Sanguine Media Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax - 3, Chandran Nagar Main Road, Chennai. Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044. Pan: Aaecs 2217C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

details if any available to prove the assessee had availed the loan. Since the AO could not produce the necessary details, the reopening of assessment was concluded without making any additions on account of so called fictitious loan of Rs.73,60,956/- from Shri Jignesh Shah. It was submitted that ... pages enclosing therein the scrip name referred in the seized document as provided by the DCIT, Central Circle, Ahmedabad, insight information that prompted reopening of assessment, details of the entry provider, ITI’s report to the DDIT (Inv), Ahmedabad, etc. The ld.DR supported the supported the order of PCIT passed

Shahnaj, Near Bherudanji Well vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Income Tax Office

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

whether the land fall under the definition of capital asset or not and only on the basis of AIR information, the AO reopened the assessment and issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act. It is submitted that the reasons recorded merely reflect the suspicion ... based on vague information the reassessment was held to be not valid in law. Further, it is to contend that that the reopening of assessment is bad in law for the reasons: a) That the information on the basis of which the Assessing Officer had initiated proceedings

Maninder Singh, Kala Amb Road, Naraingarh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5, Income Tax Officer, Ambala Cantt

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

grounds: 1. That the learned CIT(A)(NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of learned AO in reopening of assessment u/s 148. 2. That the learned CIT(A)(NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of learned

Lalitaben Dipakbhai Modh, Surat vs. PCIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 715/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271F

there is no specific amount of Rs.23,30,537/- invested in M/s. Pradip Overseas Ltd. as held that in the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment, whereas the assessee earned intraday profit of Rs.1839 and Short Term loss of Rs. 10,53,688/- on the purchase and sale of Pradip ... proceedings but assessed the Returned Income filed by the assessee. 9. For the very same reasons recorded for escapement of income, Ld. PCIT reopened the assessment by invoking Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the A.O. has not made necessary enquiries I.T.A No. 715/Ahd/2024

Aashna Diamond, Shreeji Chambers vs. Income Tax Officer- 19(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5363/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 148

NFAC, Delhi and they relate to the Assessment Years (AYs.) 2011-12 and 2012-13. The assessee is challenging the validity of reopening of assessments in both the years and purchases. 2. The facts relating to the case are discussed in brief. The assessee is a trader, importer and exporter ... said information to the AO. Accordingly, the AO formed the view that the above said purchases are bogus in nature. Accordingly, the AO reopened the assessment of both the years by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act. 3. Before the AO, the assessee submitted the details of purchases invoices, details

Aashna Diamond, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle- 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5361/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 148

M/S Srimy Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4892/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Srimy Jewels Dcit Circle 4(3)(1), Private Limited Thrugh Mumbai. Mr. Subodh Modi, Director Of The Appellant Company Je-3010, Vs. Bhrat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. Pan: Aagcs0025G Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap (Sr. D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

26/07/2022. In response to the notice, assessee filed return of income on 17/05/2023. The assessee also sought for the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment, which is reproduced in the assessment order dated 28/05/2023. 2.2. The crux of the reasons recorded is that, an information was received, wherein ... evident that entire credit transactions in their bank accounts are unexplained credits. Section 147 of the Act lays down that the reopening the assessment can be done by the Assessing Officer (AO) if he has 'reason to believe' that the income has escaped assessment. Escapement of income chargeable

Ashok Amratlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 4286/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2015-16 - A.Y. 2016-17 - A.Y. 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR DR)

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151A

limitation, The appellant has also contended that notice u/s. 148 was issued after 01/04/2021, when an altogether new regime of taxation related to "reopening of assessment", had come into force, in the form of section 148A and sub-sections thereof. In this regard, the appellant has claimed that the notice

Navjyoti Farming Private Limited, Belapur vs. ITO, Ward -3, Panvel

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

ITA 1020/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

NFAC was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act as well as in making the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with such order ... failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of assessment, such reopening of assessment is not valid. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions: (i) SABH Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT (2017) 398 ITR 198 (Del) (ii) Rajshree