← 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

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Classic Network Limited, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 273/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

year 2014–15. (iii) Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.286/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, on the plea that in order to reopen the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, the primary ... higher authorities under section 151 of the Act, is neither digitally signed nor manually signed, hance, assessing officer does not have jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act. In order to adjudicate, this technical ground of the assessee, for assessment years 2013–14 and for assessment

M/S. Classic Network Limited, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

year 2014–15. (iii) Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.286/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, on the plea that in order to reopen the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, the primary ... higher authorities under section 151 of the Act, is neither digitally signed nor manually signed, hance, assessing officer does not have jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act. In order to adjudicate, this technical ground of the assessee, for assessment years 2013–14 and for assessment

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Classic Network Limited, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 13/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

year 2014–15. (iii) Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.286/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, on the plea that in order to reopen the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, the primary ... higher authorities under section 151 of the Act, is neither digitally signed nor manually signed, hance, assessing officer does not have jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act. In order to adjudicate, this technical ground of the assessee, for assessment years 2013–14 and for assessment

Ramesh Babu Bejjala, Kothagudem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kothagudem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1010/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 348Section 44ASection 63A

amended Section 149 of the Act, the impugned notice is beyond the period of six years from the Assessment Year 2017-18. The reopening of assessment proceedings have also been challenged on the ground that during pendency of the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act on the same issue ... dated 26.03.2024. It is submitted that the instant notice was issued prior to the expiry of six years period for reopening the assessment proceedings under the un- amended Section 149 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed

Devanand Amarnath Parkar, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(4)(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Bandra East

ITA 6462/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56(2)(viib)

under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred & failed to appreciate that the reopening of assessment vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30/07/2022 i.e After expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year

Sudhir Motiram Patil, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6190/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalsudhir Motiram Patil C/O Hukumchand Jain, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Kamala Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400013 ............... Appellant Pan: Avvpp1813G V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, ……………… Respondent Kalyan, Maharashtra – 421301 Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 234A

raised the following grounds: - 2 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad-in-law and required to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances ... case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of assessment without considering the fact that the proceedings for AY 2017-18 are time barred as per section 149(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Akshay Deepak Talim, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5130/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Kulkarnai, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69A

view of the provisions of S. 149(1)(a) and S. 149 (1)(b), the Ld. AO erred in assuming the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. The order is therefore invalid, bad in law and is liable to quash. GROUND NO. 2: The assessment is reopened without tangible material ... appeal. ITA No.5130/MUM/2025 (AY. 2017-18) 3. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“/earned AR”), at the outset, submitted that the reopening of assessment is time- barred as the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued after 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year

Navgrahaa Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4786/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnavgrahaa Jewels Private Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner 7(1)(1), Unit No.341 & 342, Pragati Mumbai Industrial Esrate, N. M. Joshi Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Lower Parel East, Mumbai-400011 Pan: Aaecn0220G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Adv., Ms. Vinita Nara Adv Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2013-14, Date Of Order 11.11.2024. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, Adv., Ms. Vinita Nara AdvFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, SR DR
Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14bSection 250Section 69C

which is relevant par tof the said order is reproduced as below: “III. REBUTTAL TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERITS Ground 1(a): Reopening of Assessment under Section 148 is Time-Barred 9. The Appellant contends that the reopening for AY 2013-14 is time-barred, ignoring the procedural history

Bhavika Bhuwalka, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(2), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8258/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Bhavika Bhuwalka Vs. Ito C055, Iind Floor, Preet Ward-5 (1) (2) Vihar, Delhi Noida Pan No. Amnpb8209R Appellant Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69

beyond period of four years and in view of provision of section 151 of the Act the competent authority for sanctioning for reopening an assessment which is beyond a period of three years is PCIT/CIT. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page- 2 of the paper book which ... reflective of independent application of mind. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to page -3 which are the reasons for reopening of assessment u/s.148 of the Act, submitted that the reason for reopening of assessment was stated to be that the assessee purchased penny stock from Global

Seema Puri, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-59(1), Delhi

ITA 7591/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7591/Del/2025 [Assessment

ACIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi vs. Yasmin Kapoor, Delhi

ITA 3379/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "A": NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

ACIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi vs. Yasmin Kapoor, Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2221/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

section 151 of the Act is to introduce a supervisory check over the work of the AO, particularly, in the context of reopening of assessment. The law expects the AO to exercise the power under section 147 of the Act to reopen an assessment only after due application of mind

ACIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi vs. Deepa Talwar, Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2203/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

section 151 of the Act is to introduce a supervisory check over the work of the AO, particularly, in the context of reopening of assessment. The law expects the AO to exercise the power under section 147 of the Act to reopen an assessment only after due application of mind

Yasmin Kapoor, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 19, Delhi

ITA 1542/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "A": NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

Jagruti Bharat Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8226/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Jagruti Bharat Shah Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), 83 30 Rekha Bldg, Mumbai Vs. Rak Road, Wadala, Mumbai - 400031 [Pan: Aaqps1580D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, Advocates Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-2, Lucknow, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025- 26/1081211974(1), Dated 26.09.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2)(1), Mumbai, U/S. 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 26.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Act Dated 26.09.2025 Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant & Confirming The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act Which Is Bad & Invalid In The Eyes Of Law. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Appreciating That The Assessment Order Passed Is In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Mr. Dhaval Shah and Ms. Tisha Bagh, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

without deciding the appeal on merits. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the reopening of assessment by the Ld. AO is invalid and bad in the eyes of law. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Bhavana Suresh Chauhan, Borivali West vs. Ward42(1)(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 7290/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhavana Suresh Chauhan Ito, Ward-42(1)(1), Mumbai 703, Kguru Residency, 1 Babai Naka, Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai, Dharamdas Marg, Borivali West, Maharashtra – 400051. Mumbai – 400097. [Pan No. Adipc1169K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 254(1)Section 68

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the ground raised by the appellant challenging the validity of the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the notice issued u/s 148 / 148A

ITO 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ska Sales Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5966/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 148Section 151Section 250

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. A table representing the prescription under the old and new regime is set out below: 74. The above table indicates that the specified authority

Bysol Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5898/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

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

M/S Sheetal Clothing Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5825/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151Section 68

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

Amit Kumar Bajaj, Mumbai vs. DCIT-24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1309/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaramit Kumar Bajaj Dcit-24(1), A-3001, Omkar, Off Dr. Piramal Chambers, Annie Besant Road, Near Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai- Neelam Centre, Hanuman 400 012 Nagar, Worli, Maharashtra – 400 030 Pan/Gir No. Afrpb3442B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 dated 13.09.2016 by the Assessing Officer, which is not as per provisions of law, clearly outside