“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

Money Magnum Constructions, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 27, Mumbai

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

ITA 2445/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Money Magnum Constructions Pr. Cit, Circle-27 Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Plot No. 157 Samruddhi, 18Th Road, Near Ambedkar Garden, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station, Vs. Chembur (E), Mumbai-400 071 Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703. Pan/Gir No. Aacfn 9126 C (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Paresh Shaparia : Ms.Sanyogita Nagpal Respondent By : 09.09.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pcit, Mumbai-27 (‘Ld. Pcit For Short), Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Relevant To Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: I. “Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Bad In Law: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr. Cit 27 Erred In Treating The Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 24 March 2022 (Re-Assessment Order) As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Thereby Setting Aside The Order. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr.Cit 27 Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Original Assessment Order As Well As Re- Assessment Order Have Duly Considered The Transaction Of Nsel Commodity Loss Of Rs

For Appellant: Shri. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: 09.09.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

matrix of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. AO has not inquired into the issue for which the reopening of assessment was initiated and has merely accepted the returned loss filed by the assessee without substantiating as to why he has arrived at the said

Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Mumbai, Income Tax Department vs. Monarch Technobuild Private Limted, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 1287/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail: A.Y. : 2012-13 C.O. No. 172/Mum/2024 A.Y. : 2012-13 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1287/M/24)

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68Section 69A

assessee also submitted that the assessee had time and again called for a copy of the sanction granted by the Ld.PCIT for reopening of assessment, but the same was not provided. The learned counsel for the assessee referred to the copy of the objections raised before

Howrah Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 694/KOL/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Nov 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

notice was ever issued u/s 148 of the Act by the AO to the assessee. In fact the reopening of assessment was made for AY 2003-04 and the copy of notice issued u/s 148 dated 25.10.2009 is filed at page no. 3 of the paper book. The assessee filed

ACIT, Corporate Corporate Circle -1 (1), Chennai vs. Fl Smidth Private Limited, Kanchipuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 1827/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, FCA &For Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Before the FAA, the assessee had raised grounds with regard to validity of reopening of assessment and also on merits. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of assessee. On merits, the CIT(A) allowed the grounds of the assessee ... entirety. As regards to grounds relating to validity of reopening of assessment, the CIT(A) rejected the same by observing as under:- “3.2.2. Regarding the grounds with respect to validity of re-opening of Assessment under section 147 of the Act, I find that the reasons do not lack validity

Dipika Jitesh Palrecha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4895/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2014-15 Dipika Jitesh Palrecha, Income Tax Officer–19(1)(4), 41, 1St Floor, Piramal Chamber, Vijay Chambers, 1140, Vs. Lalbaugh, Tribhuvan Road, Mumbai. Opp: Dreamland Cinema, Mumbai Pan : Ahnpp6514G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shashank Mehta Revenue By : Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

Assessment Year (AY.) 2014-15. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the validity of reopening of assessment, addition made u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) and the addition made u/s.69C of the Act. 2 2. The facts relating ... delete both the impugned additions made by him. 11 15. The assessee has also raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the reopening of assessment. Since we have deleted the additions on merits, the said legal ground is rendered academic in nature and hence, we leave the same open

Agt Foods India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Additional, Joint, Deputy, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre

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

ITA 464/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,17,53,488/- made by the AO. The assessee has also raised a ground challenging the validity of reopening of assessment. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of import and sale of chick peas, masoor dal, rice, sugar etc. The original assessment ... AO.u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') accepting the income declared by the assessee. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment of the year under consideration by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act. The reasons for reopening of assessment are discussed in brief. The assessee had purchased

Ms Regency Aims Private Limited, Kolkata vs. National Faceless Assessment Unit, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 93/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ms. Regency Aims Private Limited National Faceless Appeal 6, Hunger Ford Street, Centre, Delhi Vs. Kolkata-700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcm4986F Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra ChoudhuryFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

memorandum of grounds which is extracted below- “2. For that on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law reopening of assessment under borrowed satisfaction is bad in law and should be set aside.” 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return ... information/details. 05. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ld. AO has simply reopened the assessment based on the report of the DDIT (Inv.) without doing any investigation on the information received and without any application of mind

M/S. Jindal Drugs Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3724/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailjindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. 12A, 12Th Floor, Bakhtawar, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai Maharashtra - 400021 ……………. Appellant Pan: Aaacj1000A V/S

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakkaniFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 69C

such, the reassessment order passed is bad in law and ought to be quashed. 1.2 The Learned CIT(A)NFAC erred in confirming reopening of assessment without appreciating that reopening was done on the basis of wrong fact i.e. the transaction between Appellant and Mint Agro Tech ... reopening tantamounts to "change of opinion" and hence, reopening is bad in law. 1.5 The Learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming reopening of assessment without appreciating that sanction u/s 151 was obtained before recording of reasons and hence reopening is bad in law. Ground No. 2: Erred in confirming

Sho Singh Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 3300/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roysho Singh Tyagi Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2)(3) B-305, Raj Nagar Cgo Complex-Ii, Kamla Residency, Raj Nagar Nehru Nagar, Ext. Ghaziabad (Up) Hapur Chungi 201017 Ghaziabad- 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aekpt2974E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sahil Sharma, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

consideration declaring 2 Sho Singh Tyagi total income at Rs.1,81,607/-. In fact, reason recorded for reopening shows that the trigger for reopening of assessment was the purported failure on the part of the assessee to file return for the year under consideration which is not correct rather ... annexed with the paper book filed before us. Thus, admittedly, the reason has been recorded on a wrong finding of fact and the reopening of assessment on that basis is, therefore, also found to be not sustainable in the eyes of law. The judgment relied upon

Baba Alloys Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 4(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed”

ITA 5119/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 148

reason along with the report of DGCEI, statement recorded by Customs behind the back of the assessee which becomes the prime consideration of reopening of assessment has been sought for whereupon the copy of reason recorded has been provided to the assessee only on 10.08.2017. Immediately, thereafter ... assessee filed its representation raising objection to such reopening of assessment and prayed for supply of materials available with the AO on the basis of which the case of the assessee was reopened. The objections were not disposed of by a separate order, the impugned notice and the reassessment proceedings

Baba Alloys Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 4(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed”

ITA 5118/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 148

Chiragbhai Jadurai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 708/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani nath, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 69A

Asst. Year : 2016-17 2 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of reopening of assessment though Reopening of assessment is on borrowed satisfaction and without independent application of mind. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts ... upholding validity of reopening of assessment though the Ld. AO has assumed jurisdiction on the basis of some non specific & vague information. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of reopening of assessment done by the Ld. AO for cash deposit

Jasvant Baraiya, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1430/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

equity & justice. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of order passed by the Ld.AO, when reopening of assessment is bad and illegal. Jasvant Baraiya vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 2 3. Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

Sejal Farms Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 406/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before him. I. Challenging the validity of notice issued u/s, 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment u/s.147 of the Act as well as passing the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act. 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred ... appellant therefore respectfully prays that :- 1. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the reopening of assessment by the Ld. A.O by issuing the notice u/s.148 of the Act and passing of the order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the Act may kindly be quashed. 2. The addition

Shanti Farms Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 405/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Sudama Farms Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 404/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Shalimar Farms Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 403/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Micron Builders, Vashi vs. ITO 28(2)(1), Vashi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5002/MUM/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2015-16 Micron Builders Income Tax Officer F-11, Ward- 28(3)(1) The Affaires (Mall Area), Vrccl-316, 4Th Floor, Plot No.9, Vs. Tower No.6, Sector-17, Sanpada, Vashi Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400705. Vashi, Pan: Aarfm8202B Navi Mumbai- 400703. Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR

opinion that proper verification of the Micron Builders ; A. Y2015-16 facts deserves to be made as it was a case of reopening of assessment. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records placed before us. 5. Considering the submissions made by both

Rajesh Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 660/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs Ito 108, Parmesh Business Ward- 2 (2) Centre Plot No.20 Ghaziabad Community Centre, Karkardooma New Delhi Pan No.Ahlps06322A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 69

facts of the Case. 2. APPEAL is filed well in time as prescribed under the Act. 3. Order of confirming the reopening of assessment is bad I view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Order of confirming the reopening of assessment ... basis of cash deposit is bad. 5. Order of confirming the reopening of assessment on the basis of AIR Information is bad in law. 6. No notice U/s sec. 148 of the act served on the assessee. 7. Assessee reserve right to the file detailed/more grounds of appeal

Graphite & Mineral Products, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 47, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1512/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 147Section 250Section 68

merits in favour of the assessee and at this stage, we are not inclined to adjudicate the legal issue relating to validity of reopening of assessment, as at this stage, it is rendered as academic in nature. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order is pronounced