“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

Shailesh Subodhchandra Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

ITA 14/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deeapk Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

assessee's failure to disclose all necessary facts. The relevant extracts of the “Reason to Believe” is reproduced for ready reference: “Reasons for reopening the Assessment Shailesh S Jhaveri (ADTPJ0210B) - A.Y. 2011-12 A search and survey action was carried out at the residence and offices of Shri Shirish Chandrakant ... assessee. 27. Before us, the counsel for the assessee has submitted that he shall not be pressing for ground related to challenge to reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, grounds relating to challenge to reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act are hereby dismissed

Applied Tek and Management Consultancy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mum-C-(411)(1), DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 4794/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shriprashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri DeepakTralshawalaFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

assessee and order u/s. 148A(d) of the I.T. Act dated 30.07.2022 was passed. The case was found to be fit for reopening of assessment and notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act dated 30.07.2022 was issued to the assessee. Copy of the order u/s. 148A(d) & notice

Applied Tek and Management Consultancy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mum-C-(411)(1), DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 4792/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shriprashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri DeepakTralshawalaFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Applied Tek and Management Consultancy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 4681/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shriprashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri DeepakTralshawalaFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Mr. Ramprakash Mathuradas Dhingra, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12

ITA 4303/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Joginder Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 251Section 68Section 69A

part of the assessee to truly disclose all material facts and it was only a question of drawing an inference from the facts, reopening of assessment beyond the four years period is invalid. Therefore when a period of four years has lapsed from the end of the relevant year ... legal position, we will now examine the assessee's case in hand. In assessee's case, it is an undisputed fact that the reopening of assessment for both AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 have been done beyond 4 years and therefore the proviso to section 148 is applicable

Mr. Ramprakash Mathuradas Dhingra, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12

ITA 4302/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Joginder Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 251Section 68Section 69A

Champion Builder Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

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

ITA 462/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.462 & 463/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

ground nos. 1 & 2 of appeals the assessee is challenging the legality of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and the reopening of assessment as illegal and bad in law. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page 39 of the Paper Book which ... reasons recorded u/s 148 of the Act for reopening of assessment for the AY 2015-16 submits that reasons recorded for reopening are vague and they are only based on the report from DDIT (Investigation), Kolkata on the basis of the search and seizure action in the case of Banka

Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat, Jaysinghpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Ichalkaranji Circle, Ichalkaranji

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 541/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.540/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Danchandghodawat, Vs The Assistant 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co-Op Commissioner Of Hsg Society, Income Tax, Jaysinghpur – 416101. Cir Ichalkaranji Circle, Maharashtra Ichalkaranji, Pan: Adlpg5040N Maharashtra – 416101. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.541/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjay Danchandghodawat, Vs The Assistant 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co-Op Commissioner Of Hsg Society, Income Tax, Jaysinghpur – 416101. Cir Ichalkaranji Circle, Maharashtra Ichalkaranji, Pan: Adlpg5040N Maharashtra – 416101. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.598/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Assistant Vs Sanjay Danchandghodawat, Commissioner Of Income 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co- Tax, Op Hsg Society, Kolhapur. Jaysinghpur – 416101. Maharashtra Pan: Adlpg5040N Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 234BSection 250Section 69

made ITA Nos.540, 541/PUN/2024 (A) & 598(R)/PUN/2024 Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat(03 Appeals) clear that the challenge to the issue of reopening of assessment is not pressed before us therefore that issue stands concluded.”Unquote. 5.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries

Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat, Jaysinghpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Ichalkaranji Circle, Ichalkaranji

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 540/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Section 234BSection 250Section 69

Aarna Infrazone Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. Pr, CIT, Noida

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1208/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri S Krishnan, and V. Rajkumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263

satisfaction note which lists the reasons for reopening. The said master sheet was crucial and tangible material for recording reasons to believe for reopening of assessment. Nevertheless, the assessee furnished all the relevant material to substantiate that the payments made to celebrations were from bank account of the assessee ... reasons recorded for reopening assessment in the case of assessee. The relevant extract of the reasons as communicated to the assessee for reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act are as under:- 5 “From the record available in this office, it has been gathered that the assessee has filed

M/S Man Diesel & Turbo India Ltd., Maharashtra vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 4295/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singha.Y. 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

appellant. In Ground No. 1 of appeal the appellant has taken the plea that AO has erred in (a) Reopening the assessment under section 147 without complying with the mandatory statutory conditions prescribed under section 147 to 151 of the Act, (b) Disposing the application for the non-receipt ... Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. (2012) 18 Taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) where it is held that at the time of issuing the notice to reopen the assessment, the Assessing Officer is only expected to form a prima facie or tentative belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Whether

Rajesh Khanna, Neelkanth Plywood, Yamunanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Yamunanagar

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 62/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT Sr.DR

Section 148Section 69A

appeal : 1. That 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. (Tax effect=Rs. 26,77,211/-) 2. That learned CIT(A) (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions ... learned AO in. reopening of assessment u/s 148 by Jurisdictional Assessing officer which is contrary to CBDT Instruction of notice to be issued by Faceless Assessing officer. (same as above) 3. That learned CIT(A) (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of learned

Income Tax Officer, Yamuna Nagar vs. Rajesh Khanna, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 230/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT Sr.DR

Section 148Section 69A

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Narendra Sampatlal Bafna, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 688/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT

Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

from various parties through Mr. Sachin Nahar, which is not reflected in the return of income and therefore has escaped assessment, reopened the assessment by recording the following reasons: “Reasons recorded for reopening AY 2017-18 reads as follows: "1. Brief Facts of the case: In original return of income ... information to the Assessing 6 CO No.25/PUN/2024 Officer of the assessee. Since the information contained fresh material, the Assessing Officer has rightly reopened the assessment u/s 148 of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, since the incriminating material seized did not belong to the assessee but only contained material

Aadesh Commodities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3959/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Harmesh Lal

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

initiated and notice dated 18/03/2020 under section 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. In the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) recorded the reason to believe that the assessee has received bogus gain by trading in scrip ofNYSSA Corporation ... Infocom Ltd., and thus the income to an extent of Rs.1,32,95,846 has escaped assessment. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are reproduced hereunder for reference: - “REASON FOR REOPENING UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 The assessee company e-filed its return on 30/09/2013

Pareshkumar Punamchand Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1096/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: CA Preyashi TatedFor Respondent: Shri Hrishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)

opening of assessment is void, illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding reopening of assessment merely on the basis of deposits in bank account. 5 I.T.A No.1096/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. Pareshkumar Punamchand Shah v. ITO 4. The Ld.CIT ... chargeable to tax has escaped assessment . The reasons were recorded by the AO on 21.02.2018 after taking approval of ld. PCIT. The AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 by issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 20.03.2018. The assessee was asked to file return of income in pursuance to aforesaid notice

Kaivan Jitendrkumar Shah HUF, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 644/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2013-14 Kaivan Jitendrakumar Shah Huf, The Pr. Commissioner Of 27A, Anmol, Maharashtra Society, Vs Income Tax, Nr. Lions Hall, Mithakali, Ahmedabad-1, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan : Aahhk 9488 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sulabh Padshah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

that the Assessing Officer has not verified the issue of accommodation entries amounting to Rs.35.04,500/-. It is submitted that the case being reopening of assessment had reopened on ground of accommodation entries in form of fictitious loan received of Rs 35,04,500/- and after verification of objection filed

Umeshbhai Rameshchandra Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, (Intnl.Taxn.)-2, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 111/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh & Shri Nirav ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 250

unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the assessee on this issue. In the result, the assessee’s challenge to reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act, is dismissed. 7. This brings us to the merits of the case, wherein the counsel for the assessee submitted

Ashok Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1394/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

above discussion, facts discussed, perusal of records, we are of the view that the very issue was raised in the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act, relevant reasons recorded reads as under:- 2. As per the information available with t he department, due to the fact

Aircel Celllular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Cricle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1605/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1602, 1603, 1604 & 1605/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2012-2013, 2013-14 & 2017-2018 Aircel Cellular Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 769, Spencer Plaza, Vs. Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle 1(1) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaacr 5136R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2006-2007, Dated27.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 30Section 31(1)

determining the total income at Rs.2,65,01,478/--. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened, against this assessee filed a writ petition challenging the reopening of assessment before the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The same was disposed off by the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide order dated April ... alia that the Resolution Plan did not contemplate any concession from the Income-tax department and hence, the respondent was not precluded from reopening the assessment proceedings. To substantiate his ITA Nos. 1602 to 1605/Chny/2023 contention, the learned senior counsel referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court