← All Phrases

“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

Pradip Kumar Jajodia, HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 192/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.190 To 192/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

LTCG earned by the assessee were bogus. He, accordingly, formed the belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and reopened the assessment. 4.1. The Ld. Counsel inviting our attention to the afore-reproduced reasons for reopening of the assessment has submitted that the aforesaid reasons were vague ... coming to the notice of the Assessing Officer and the formation of belief regarding escapement of income. The powers of Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment, though wide, are not plenary. The words of the statute are "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". Such an action

Pradip Kumar Jajodia, HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 191/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.190 To 192/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

LTCG earned by the assessee were bogus. He, accordingly, formed the belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and reopened the assessment. 4.1. The Ld. Counsel inviting our attention to the afore-reproduced reasons for reopening of the assessment has submitted that the aforesaid reasons were vague ... coming to the notice of the Assessing Officer and the formation of belief regarding escapement of income. The powers of Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment, though wide, are not plenary. The words of the statute are "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". Such an action

Pradip Kumar Jajodia (HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 190/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.190 To 192/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

LTCG earned by the assessee were bogus. He, accordingly, formed the belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and reopened the assessment. 4.1. The Ld. Counsel inviting our attention to the afore-reproduced reasons for reopening of the assessment has submitted that the aforesaid reasons were vague ... coming to the notice of the Assessing Officer and the formation of belief regarding escapement of income. The powers of Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment, though wide, are not plenary. The words of the statute are "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". Such an action

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia, Tonk vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3, Jaipur, Jpr

In the result, Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is also allowed and order declared to be bad in law, as the same violated the Principle of Natural Justice

ITA 420/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyaldinesh Kumar Chaurasia, M/S. Mahendra Gargieya & Associates, 537-539, Gargieya’S 5Th Floor, Mahima Trinity, Near Jyoti Rao Phule College, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur – 302 019. Pan No.: Abapc 0810D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle - 3, Jaipur – 302 005. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

hands of company is hereby deleted. Assessee's appeal in Gr No. 2 stands allowed." 3. The assessee's appeal with respect to reopening of assessment was allowed. The CIT (A) held that reassessment notice was invalid. The ITAT in its elaborate order discussed the validity of reassessment notice

Dalu Vasu Hiranandani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) - 2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1788/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Ruparel , AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(3)Section 24

Aggrieved by the addition made during reassessment proceedings, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) objecting to the reopening of assessment and the addition made. Detailed written submissions were filed by the Ld. AR of the appellant before Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the same ... Nawab Mir Ali (97 ITR 239 (SC) has held that having second thought on same matrial is not permissible to reopen the assessment. (c) Section 147(3) clearly says that assessment cannot be reopened after 4 years, if there is no failure on the part of assessee. 8. In view

Atiq Ahmed, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Hapur

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

ITA 3676/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3675 & 3676/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14& 2014-15 बनाम Atiq Ahmed Income Tax Officer, House No.333, Bhamda Patti, Vs. Ward-2(3)(4), Pattharwalakaun, Aaykarbhawan, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh. Teachers Colony, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Aifpa8796G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

issue, which is common in both these appeals, is raised by assessee is as regard to assumption jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer for reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. For this assessee has raised ground nos. 1, 2, 2.1 and 2.2, which are argumentative and exhaustive ... meat, which is traditional family occupation in the area of District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, recorded the reasons for reopening of assessment and then issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, framed assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B

Atiq Ahmed, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Hapur

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

ITA 3675/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3675 & 3676/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14& 2014-15 बनाम Atiq Ahmed Income Tax Officer, House No.333, Bhamda Patti, Vs. Ward-2(3)(4), Pattharwalakaun, Aaykarbhawan, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh. Teachers Colony, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Aifpa8796G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

issue, which is common in both these appeals, is raised by assessee is as regard to assumption jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer for reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. For this assessee has raised ground nos. 1, 2, 2.1 and 2.2, which are argumentative and exhaustive ... meat, which is traditional family occupation in the area of District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, recorded the reasons for reopening of assessment and then issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, framed assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B

ITO Ward - 2, Karnal vs. Hardeep Singh, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1152/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1152/िद"ी/2020(िन.व. 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Ward-2, Karnal, Haryana 132001 बनाम Vs. Hardeep Singh, S/O Jaswant Singh, Vill. Kutail, Po Darar, Karnal, Haryana 132001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Exups 8061 N Co No. 150/Del/2023 (A.Y.2011-12) In Ita No. 1152/Del/2020 Hardeep Singh, S/O Jaswant Singh, Vill. Kutail, Po Darar, Karnal, Haryana 132001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Exups 8061 N बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Ward-2, Karnal, Haryana 132001 Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain, Aman Garg, Advocates & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Chartered Accountant Department By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/12/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/12/2024

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain, Aman Garg, Advocates &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

return of income on 05.05.2018 declaring income of Rs.1,34,955/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,70,468/-. The assessee filed objections against reopening of assessment on 23.08.2018. The contention of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer (AO) in violation of the law laid down ... defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the Revenue. He submitted that the AO without disposing of objections filed against reopening of assessment has passed the assessment order. The Hon’ble Apex Court has mandated that the objections have to be decided by the AO by passing

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5631/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

instant appeal relates to the manner of recording the approval granted by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act for reopening of assessment proceedings as per Section 148 of the Act. 14. It is pertinent to first examine the mandate of Section

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5630/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

instant appeal relates to the manner of recording the approval granted by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act for reopening of assessment proceedings as per Section 148 of the Act. 14. It is pertinent to first examine the mandate of Section

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5629/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

instant appeal relates to the manner of recording the approval granted by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act for reopening of assessment proceedings as per Section 148 of the Act. 14. It is pertinent to first examine the mandate of Section

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5628/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

instant appeal relates to the manner of recording the approval granted by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act for reopening of assessment proceedings as per Section 148 of the Act. 14. It is pertinent to first examine the mandate of Section

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5627/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

instant appeal relates to the manner of recording the approval granted by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act for reopening of assessment proceedings as per Section 148 of the Act. 14. It is pertinent to first examine the mandate of Section

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5626/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

instant appeal relates to the manner of recording the approval granted by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act for reopening of assessment proceedings as per Section 148 of the Act. 14. It is pertinent to first examine the mandate of Section

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5625/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

instant appeal relates to the manner of recording the approval granted by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act for reopening of assessment proceedings as per Section 148 of the Act. 14. It is pertinent to first examine the mandate of Section

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5624/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

instant appeal relates to the manner of recording the approval granted by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act for reopening of assessment proceedings as per Section 148 of the Act. 14. It is pertinent to first examine the mandate of Section

Satish Harnamdas Sethi, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3091/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr.AR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

issuing a notice under Section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assesses from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments. 128 A table representing the prescription under the old and new regime is set out below: 74. The above table indicates that the specified

ACIT-15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Surya Ferrous Alloys Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1406/MUM/2024[2017-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2017-15

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh, Advocate and Shri Akshay Pawar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 40A(3)

issuing a notice under Section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assesses from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments. 128 A table representing the prescription under the old and new regime is set out below: 74. The above table indicates that the specified

Reliance Industries Holdings Private Limited (the Appellant) Successor of M/S Ekansha Enterprises Pvt Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT)A-56, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2992/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 92ASection 92A(2)(j)Section 92BSection 92E

same was passed in name and PAN of the Predecessor which was a non-existing entity as on that date Challenging validity of reopening of assessment: 4. erred in upholding the assessment re-opened beyond 6 years by the AO on the alleged ground that the predecessor and M/s. Biometrix

Reliance Industries Holding Private Limited (the Appellant (Successor of M/S Ekansha Enterprises Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (CIT)-56, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2991/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 92ASection 92A(2)(j)Section 92BSection 92E

same was passed in name and PAN of the Predecessor which was a non-existing entity as on that date Challenging validity of reopening of assessment: 4. erred in upholding the assessment re-opened beyond 6 years by the AO on the alleged ground that the predecessor and M/s. Biometrix