← 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

Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1604/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

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

Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1603/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

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

Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1602/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

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

Rajen Harshadrai Sanghavi, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (3) - 1, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and reassessment order is quashed

ITA 466/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 466/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) Rajen Harshadrai Sanghavi Vs. Ito 26(3)(1) 3, Garden View Apartment Kautilya Bhavan Dr. Ambedkar Road Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai-400 080 Bandra East, Mumbai Pan : Aaips5226J 400 051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee/Appellant Against The Appellate Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Being Additional Cit/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) – 2, Siliguri (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2013 – 14 Dated 7/12/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 21/12/2019 Passed By The Income Tax Officer , Ward 26 (3) (1), Mumbai (The Learned Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Wherein Claim Of Exemption Under Section 10 (38) Of The Act Of Rs. 1,657,645/– Was Denied, Was Dismissed. 2. Assessee Is Aggrieved & Is In Appeal Before Us Against The Assessment Order Denying The Exemption Under Section 10 (38) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Case Shows That Assessee Is An Individual Filed Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs. 269,000/– Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Of Long-Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 16,57,545/–. Roi

Section 10Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

substance assessee has obtained the benefit of long-term capital gain which is fictitious and therefore the addition is made by reopening of assessment. There is no infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities. 12. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders

DCIT, Gurugram vs. Rajesh Kumar, Sonepat

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 82/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 68

against the order at the instance of the assessee to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not successful, though the point of reopening of assessment has been taken before him. The assessee carried the matter on further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken the issue

Rajesh Kumar, Sonepat vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Gurgaon

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 61/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 68

against the order at the instance of the assessee to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not successful, though the point of reopening of assessment has been taken before him. The assessee carried the matter on further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken the issue