“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

ITA 783/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S, Praveena, D.R

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

assessee filed Cross Objection Nos.15 to 18/Bang/2024 for the AYs 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively, wherein assessee challenged the reopening of assessment by raising the grounds as under: 1. “The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is opposed to the facts ... such provision made and no such claim made by the assessee. 8.2 The ld. A.R. submitted that during the assessment proceedings consequent to reopening, the Assessing Officer ignored the issue on which reopening was made but issued a show cause ITA Nos.780 to 785/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.15 to 18/Bang/2024 M/s. Coffee

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. Coffee Day Enterprises, Bengaluru

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

ITA 782/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S, Praveena, D.R

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 781/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

assessee filed Cross Objection Nos.15 to 18/Bang/2024 for the AYs 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively, wherein assessee challenged the reopening of assessment by raising the grounds as under: 1. "The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is opposed to the facts ... such provision made and no such claim made by the assessee. 8.2 The ld. A.R. submitted that during the assessment proceedings consequent to reopening, the Assessing Officer ignored the issue on which reopening was made but issued a show cause stating that, there is expenditure disallowable U/s.36(1)(iii) r.w.s

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 780/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

assessee filed Cross Objection Nos.15 to 18/Bang/2024 for the AYs 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively, wherein assessee challenged the reopening of assessment by raising the grounds as under: 1. 2. 3. "The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is opposed to the facts ... such provision made and no such claim made by the assessee. 8.2 The ld. A.R. submitted that during the assessment proceedings consequent to reopening, the Assessing Officer ignored the issue on which reopening was made but issued a show cause Page 10 of 26 stating that, there is expenditure disallowable

Interarch Building Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8280/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarinterarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, B-30, Sector-57, Noida, Circle-11(1), Uttar Pradesh New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaci0106J

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 80I

sought to be reopened by the ld. AO vide issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.3.2012. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment was duly furnished to the assessee by the ld. AO which reads as under:- "The assessment in the above mentioned case ... Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd and its eligibility conditions, clearly go to prove that the ld. AO had resorted to reopening of assessment only based on audit objection and not based on any independent application of mind. The entire reopening of assessment has been made based on incorrect assumption

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad., Maharashtra vs. Royal Estates, Aurangabad, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 34/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69

investment declared by the assessee and estimated by the DVO in AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 was sought to be taxed by reopening the assessment of both the years u/s 147 of the Act by issue of notice(s) u/s 148 on 30.03.2017 which was duly served upon ... assessee. 6. The assessee requested the Ld. AO to communicate reason for reopening the assessments which was done. Vide letter dated 18.08.2017 the assessee submitted to the Ld. AO that the rate per sq. ft. for construction as per the DVO was Rs.1,600/- per sq. ft. The actual cost

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(5), Aurangabad, Maharashtra vs. Royal Estates, Aurangabad, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 33/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69

Mrs. Neelam Agrawal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.756/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Neelam Agarwal ………. Appellant (Pan: Adcpa3772G) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-37(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, , Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 22.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revision Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kolkat-13 [In Short Ld. “Pr. Cit”] Dated 15.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Ao, Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.03.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Revising The Reassessment Order Which Was Itself Invalid & Bad In Law As Sanction For Reopening Of Assessment Proceedings Was Not Taken From Prescribed Authority As Per Section 151. I.T.A. No. 756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, Ay : 2015-16

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

that the Ld. PCIT erred in revising the reassessment order which was itself invalid and bad in law as sanction for reopening of assessment proceedings was not taken from prescribed authority as per section 151. I.T.A. No. 756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, AY : 2015-16 2. For that the Ld. PCIT erred ... been exercised on such invalid assessment order. 11. Even as far as the second plea of the assessee that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment do not demonstrate that the Ld. AO has reasons to believe also has sufficient merit. We notice that the reopening has been done simply

Green Orchand Farm Houses, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 879/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Saravanan B., D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154Section 43C

where the payable income has been determined at Rs.32,83,70,789/-. Later notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued for reopening the assessment on 31.3.2021 after obtaining approval from competent authority u/s 151 of the Act. Same was served to the assessee on 25.01.2021, wherein ... recorded the reasons for reopening of assessment as follows: “2. An Inquiry has been conducted in the case of M/S. Manipal Academy of Higher Education and notice u/s 133(6) has been issued and subsequently it was seen that M/S Manipal Academy of Higher Education has purchased lands from

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Peeklon, Vidhisha vs. ACIT, Vidhisha

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 131/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 249(2)Section 69A

assessee was not given an opportunity to explain the reasons of delay in gathering necessary documents. It is a case of reopening of assessment u/s 148 on 31.03.2021 and there was a substantial gap between the assessment years under consideration and reopening the assessment by the A.O and therefore, without

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Peeklon, Vidhisha vs. ACIT, Vidhisha

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 130/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 249(2)Section 69A

Mali Ram Yadav, Shahpura vs. ITO, Behror

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 513/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 69A

Then, the reasons to believe escapement of income need to spell out all the reasons and grounds available with the Ld. AO for reopening the assessment. The reasons must also paraphrase any investigation report, which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted ... judgment in the case of Harmeet Singh, Delhi Vs. ITO, New Delhi ITA No. 1939/Del/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 where in stated that the reopening the assessment purely on the ground that the cash deposited with the bank is income of the assessee is purely a doubt that it is income

Royal Swan Charitable Minority Trust, Nanded vs. ITO (Exemption), Nanded

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all the three AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1130/PUN/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 133ASection 142A(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming the addition on the basis of DVO's report which was made without rejection of books of account. 6. Reopening of assessment 6.1. The reassessment is bad in law as it is made in consequence to DVO's report. The reassessment merely based on DVO’s report

Royal Swan Charitable Minority Trust, Nanded vs. ITO (Exemption), Nanded

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all the three AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1129/PUN/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 133ASection 142A(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Royal Swan Charitable Minority Trust, Nanded vs. ITO (Exemption), Nanded

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all the three AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1128/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 133ASection 142A(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

A.C.I.T. Cir. 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Doshion Watesr Solutions P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA NO

ITA 1503/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

FEMA provisions and RBI regulations. Remaining aspect of the matter in respect of deletion of aforesaid additions except the validity of the reopening of assessment, has already been considered by us in our conclusive findings arrived at in ITA NO. 78/MUM/2018. Aforesaid findings shall mutatis mutandis apply to the facts

Rewin Ceramics Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 21(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 4580/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

ITAT Pune) 4. Copy of judgment in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs ACIT reported in 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajshthan). PROPOSITION 2: Reopening of Assessment Merely based on investigation report without being any material or statement is unjustified and untenable. 1. Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO (Delhi ... distinguishable to the facts of record. 11. After careful consideration of propositions 3 and 4, we have noticed that the AO had reopened the assessment based on the information from the investigation wing and had properly recorded the same to initiate the reopening of assessment proceedings

Ilabahen Viralkumar Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Anand

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

ITA 17/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal V. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

were not recorded before issue of notice the provisions of which are mandatory and not following the provisions of Law makes the very Reopening of assessment bad in Law and Void. I.T.A No. 17/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. 3 Ilabahen Viralkumar Mehta. v. ITO 3. Your Appellant also submits

Veenapani Investments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 193/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalito 13(3)(1), Veenapani Investments Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Private Limted, Mumbai.400020. Flat No. 302, B–Wing, Garden Court Co–Op Society Ltd, Amrutwani Road, Bhayender (W), Mumbai-401101. Pan/Gir No. Aaccv1684Q (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

return of income filed on 31-03-2015 may be treated as a due compliance and the assessee was provided reasons for reopening of assessment and the asssessee has filed the objections, which was disposed off by the A.O on 4.10.2017. Further notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec

Chinmay Impex Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 564/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 564/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) िनधा"रण वष" Chinmay Impex Private Income Tax Officer बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम Ward – 1(1)(3), Limited Vs. C/O. M. S. Chhajed & Co. Ahmedabad Ca, “Kamal Shanti”, Nr. Sardar Patel Statue, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380014 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcc6478J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri M. S. Chhajed, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2024 15/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 28.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Return Of Income For A.Y. 2013-14 Was Filed On 30.09.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,79,950/-. Subsequently, The Ao Received An Information From Dgit (Inv.), Mumbai That Assessee Had Entered Into Reversal

For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 151Section 68

against law, equity & justice. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of reopening of assessment though Ld. PCIT has granted mechanical approval u/s 151 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity ... reopening of assessment though Reopening of assessment is on borrowed satisfaction and without independent application of mind. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of reopening of assessment though the Ld. AO has assumed jurisdiction on the basis of some non specific