“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

Kissan Fats Ltd., Bathinda vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 407/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 148Section 68Section 69C

been placed in the assessee's compilation; that both the reasons given by the AO were, thus, wrong; that the AO had, thus, reopened the assessment on the basis of wrong facts and, therefore, the re-opening was not valid and it was being quashed. 8.2 The Tribunal followed ... Officer processed under section 143(1) returns of income filed by assessee for assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 and subsequently he reopened said assessments on sole basis that assessee had not filed returns for years preceding to assessment year 2004-05 and, therefore, its income having escaped assessment

Mr. Anil Ananda Pokharnikar, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 355/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prashant MunotFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 68Section 69

Revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"] vide Revision Order dated 31.03.2021. B) Validity of Reopening of Assessment: 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the recording of the reasons, approval/sanction granted by the competent authority, issue

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Global Institute of Technology Society, Jaipur Rajasthan

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 175/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, (Addl.CIT)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

unless the assessee fails to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. In the present case even though there was tangible material to reopen the assessment, the AO wrongly assumed the jurisdiction under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act in violation of proviso to section ... Court in case of New Delhi Television Limited v. CIT Civil Appeal No. 1008 of 2020 dated 03.04.2020, set aside the notice for reopening the assessment on the ground that there was no failure to disclose all material facts fully and truly. In other words, the Supreme Court held that

Manoharlal Kanayalal Takhtani, Bandra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 966/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Manoharlal Deputy Commissioner Of Kanayalal Takhtani Income Tax, Circle 22(1) 702, Dheerajdhan, Pirmal Chambers, Vs. St. Alexious Road, Dr. S. S. Rao Marg, Bandra (West) S.O., Parel- 400012. Mumbai- 400052. Pan:Aabpt2851P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : : Ms. Manisha Ghind, A.R. Assessee By Revenue By : Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, D.R.

For Appellant: 1. “The Hon'ble CIT (Appeal) has erred in passing anFor Respondent: Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

made u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and the income was assessed at Rs.20,64,890/-. The Ld. AO, thereafter, reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act and notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on the ground that the information was received from ... paper book in which he has given various details to show that the entire purchases were genuine. The appellant also challenged the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the assessment in this case was already made u/s. 143(3) of the Income

Hnv Printpack LLP, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 59(3), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 838/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 68

addition of Rs.30,45,000/-made by the ITO. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in upholding the reopening on assessment even though the jurisdictional preconditions for reopening of assessment were not met. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in facts ... upholding the reopening on assessment even though the reasons for reopening were not provided to the Appellant before disposing of its objections to reopening of assessment in violation of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT. 4. That the CIT(A) has erred

Cresta Fund Limited, Mauritius vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 752/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 147Section 148

propose to take up ITA No. 751/Del/2023 as the lead matter. 4. In ground no. 1, the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. However, at the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, on instructions, did not press this ... bogus transactions to book bogus long term capital loss on account of equity/derivative trading. Based on such information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income

Cresta Fund Limited, Mauritius vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2)(1), Int. Taxaion, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 751/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 147Section 148

Cricket Australia, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 1(2)(1) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 3200/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

assessment for assessment year 2013-14 has been quashed vide order dated 31.10.2023 in ITA No. 605/Del/2023 on the basis that the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction. 3.3 Ld. DR could not dispute the aforesaid facts, and the determination of the issues against

Nabhiraj Ratna Balraj by Legal Heir B.R.Rakesh, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 50C

such order is liable to be quashed. 2.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has also erred in confirming the reopening of assessment by learned Assessing Officer. The conditions precedent for issue of notice U/s. 148 of I.T. Act, 1961 having not been satisfied, the reopening of assessment ... hence the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) should have instead of confirming the assessment order, quashed the reopening of assessment. 2.2 In any case, the passing of the order without complying with the legal and statutory requirements of reassessment proceeding also makes the order bad in law and such

Ved Prakash Rajeev Kumar, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

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

ITA 1288/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Even The Ld. Cit(A) Has Issued Several

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

under Section 147 of the Act is void-ab-initio illegal because of being passed without providing reasons recorded for reopening of assessment proceedings. 4. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in making addition of Rs.12

Ashok Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. PCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 4937/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Royshri Ashok Kumar, Vs. Pr.Cit, C/O M/S. Rrr Taxindia, Ghaziabad. D-28, South Extension Part – 1, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan : Abppy8405P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 Date Of Order : 26.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Ghaziabad Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That Having Regard To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Pr.Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 & Has Erred In Holding The Assessment Order Dated 29-12-2016 As Erroneous As Well As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. That Having Regard To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Pr.Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding As Under While Passing The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

consideration. Ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that thus it is an undisputed fact that the issue which prompted the AO to reopen the assessment was duly considered and 5 the reply of the assessee was accepted and no addition was made on the issue for which reasons were ... could not have made addition on the issues raised by the PCIT as no addition was made on account of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment and, therefore, assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as alleged and thus assumption of jurisdiction

Rupesh Dhirajlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 151/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhrirupesh Dhirajlal Shah Vs. Assessing It Officer-Ward Flat No. 6, 1St Floor, 22(3)(1) Methdoot Building, Piramal Chamber, Gulmohar Cross Road No. Lalbaug, 6, Nr. Lahiri House, Jvpd Parel, Mumbai-400012 Sceheme, Vileparle West, Mumbai-400049 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafps9285G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale

Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Appeals) erred confirming the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act thereby upholding the action of reopening of Assessment by Ld. AO. Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the action ... reopening of assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law and accordingly, consequential order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act is also bad in law. Appellant submits that in view of facts and circumstances of the case, as well

M/S. Harivardhan Steel & Alloys, Thane vs. ITO-2(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms

ITA 4195/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 46ASection 68

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057106845(1) Dated 16/10/2023 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The following grounds of appeal have been raised by the appellant:- I. “Reopening of assessment and issue of notice u/s. 148. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. had erred

DCIT (Central), Bhopal vs. Shailendra Sharma, Bhopal

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

ITA 305/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 142(1)Section 153A

No.30 & 31/Ind/2023 ITA (SS) No.305/Ind/2023 Shailendra Sharma the present case, the AO proceeded to make protective assessment by way of reopening of assessment of the assessee appellant company without being a substantive assessment on the date of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act which is not permissible

Suva Lal Paharia, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur

ITA 157/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 5

entities-Tribunal allowed assessee's appeal on merits—Revenue appealed against appellate order on merits—Assessee's cross appeal was on correctness of reopening of assessment— Tribunal upheld assessee's cross-objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there was no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority ... section 50C of the Act would apply, of course, subject to the riders contained therein. However, this is not the cited reason for reopening the assessment. The reasons cited are that the assessee filed no return and that 1/3rd share of the assessee from the actual sale consideration

Mayur Deepakbhai Chavda, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1500/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Mundra

Section 143(3)Section 147

avail of the same. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has contended that the of appeal, the appellant has contended that the reopening of assessment reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act was bad in law. The appellant has also contested

Mayur Deepakbhai Chavda, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1499/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Mundra

Section 143(3)Section 147

Mayur Deepakbhai Chavda, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1498/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Mundra

Section 143(3)Section 147

Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4543/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

received information from Kolkata Investigation Wing on the shares traded by the assessee and the A.O after recording the reasons for reopening of assessment has issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act and the asssessee has filed the return of income disclosing a total income of Rs.11 ... compliance to notice u/sec148 of the Act. The assessee was also provided copy of reasons for reopening of assessment vide letter dated 05.09.2018 and the asssessee has filed objections and the objections were disposed off by the A.O. Subsequently notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed except the issue relating to reopening, which is treated as academic

ITA 1977/MUM/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora, Nikhil Tiwari & Mihir ChitaliaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

Finance Act 2008 and Finance Act 2009 respectively, since on the date on which order under section 147 for reopening of assessment was passed, there was no amendment in the Act and thereby ground taken by the AO before the Hon'ble Tribunal is not correct and hence Department appeal ... proceedings post remand by the Tribunal vide order dated 03rd May, 2019 for the 147 proceedings, the AO supplied the reasons for reopening of assessment to the assessee on 09th September, 2021 against which the assessee filed its objection to the above reasons for reopening on 15th September