“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

Marconi Infratech (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-11, Faridabad

In the result, assessee’s all appeals are allowed

ITA 3132/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. Nos. 3126 To 3132/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S. Marconi Infratech Vs. Acit (P.) Ltd., F-022, Lg, Central Circle – 11 Sushant Arcade, Sushant Faridabad Lok-1, Gurgaon Haryana – 122 002 Pan : Aagcm 1219 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nager, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 250(6)

A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 since had not fall in the previous 6 years, the assumption of jurisdiction in reopening of assessment under Section 153C of the Act for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012- 13, therefore, found to be not maintainable. The same is void ab initio and thus, quashed

Marconi Infratech (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-11, Faridabad

In the result, assessee’s all appeals are allowed

ITA 3131/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nager, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 250(6)

Marconi Infratech (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-11, Faridabad

In the result, assessee’s all appeals are allowed

ITA 3130/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nager, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 250(6)

Marconi Infratech (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-11, Faridabad

In the result, assessee’s all appeals are allowed

ITA 3129/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nager, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 250(6)

Marconi Infratech (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-11, Faridabad

In the result, assessee’s all appeals are allowed

ITA 3128/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nager, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 250(6)

Marconi Infratech (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-11, Faridabad

In the result, assessee’s all appeals are allowed

ITA 3127/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nager, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 250(6)

Marconi Infratech (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-11, Faridabad

In the result, assessee’s all appeals are allowed

ITA 3126/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nager, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 250(6)

Pratik Jatin Desai, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai, Income Tax Department

In the result, the appeal is thus allowed in above terms

ITA 673/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2012-2013

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

merits of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in upholding the action of Learned AO of reopening the assessment u/s 148. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the reopening of assessment u/s 148 is wrong and uncalled

Debabrata Banerjee, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-34, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1084/KOL/2023[2013-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2024AY 2013-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

come to the notice of the Legal Representatives of the assessee. The reasons recorded by Ld. DCIT Circle 34, Kolkata for reopening the assessment of the deceased assessee was never communicated to the assessee. Appellant Assessee accepts the fact that the notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee ... apparently more than four years after the end of relevant assessment year which is AY 2013-14. The Ld. AR argued that the reopening of assessment can only be made subject satisfaction of condition as envisaged in 1st proviso to section 147 of the Act which states that where assessment

Shri. Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1133/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep & Ms. Girija G.P, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Ramanathan, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

basis of the material already available on record and there was no new tangible material available before the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment after expiry of period of four years and it was not a case where there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose ... Moving forward, it is also pertinent to note that in case where the regular assessment under section 143(3) was completed then reopening of assessment after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant . Page 4 of 5 assessment year can only be made if there is failure

DCIT Central Circle 5 4, Mumbai vs. Sapphire Land Development Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 299/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit Central Circle 5 4,Mumbai Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ---- Appellant Vs. Saphire Land Development Pvt. Ltd. R.No.5, Capri, 3Rd Floor, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaacs-7785-H --- Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Surendra Meena Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena

Section 115JSection 148Section 14A

assessee. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development. The impugned assessment order has been passed in pursuance of reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee had earned exempt dividend 2 Assessment Year : 2010-11 income of Rs.60.35 lakhs + Rs.1.72 lakhs totaling

Yash Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year :2013-14 Yash Synthetics Private Limited Office No.2, 2Nd Floor, Shah Trade Center, Rani Sati Marg, Malad (East), Mumbai – 400 097. Pan:Aaacy-0426-B ---- Appellant Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 13(3)(2), Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 --- Respondent

For Appellant: S/Shri Vimal Punmiya &For Respondent: Shri Dinesh A. Chourasia

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

assessment year 2013-14. 2. At the time of hearing the Ld.A.R did not press the grounds relating to validity of reopening of assessment. Accordingly, grounds relating thereto are dismissed as not pressed. The remaining ground relates to addition of Rs.1.61 cores made by the Assessing Officer ... view that the assessee had paid aforesaid amount in cash during the Financial Year relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14. Accordingly, he reopened the assessment of that year by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 4. The Assessing Officer further noticed that the aforesaid document depicting cash receipts

Umesh Sumanlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 967/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 54

fact that it is high pitched assessment and required discussion on merits. 3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming reopening of assessment u/s.148 of the Act ignoring fact that there is full and true disclosure of all material facts and AO failed to observe escapement ... income. Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 2 of 5 4. The reopening of assessment is required to be quashed as it is beyond period of four years from end of the relevant assessment year and there is no failure on part of appellant to disclose true and full details

Veenita Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1199/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Director of the assessee company is not relevant for the impugned year under consideration. Hence, there is no substantial basis for reopening the assessment proceedings. 5. In response, the Ld. D.R. objected to the objections raised by the assessee for reassessment raised by the assessee on two grounds. Firstly ... Page No 4 Veenita Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT it is evident from the assessment order itself that the reasons for reopening the assessment was duly furnished to the assessee and adequate opportunity was given to the assessee to file objections against issuance of notices. However, the assessee

Easyaccess Financial Services Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Copr Ward 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 587/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 587/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Easyaccess Financial Services Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, New No.18, Old No.40, Vs. Corporate Ward 2(1), Mussuri Subramaniam Salai, Chennai. (Oliver Road), Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Aabce 4646G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. M. Lavanya, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060282095(1) Dated 30.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 27.09.2017. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Ao For Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act, As The Ao During The Original Assessment Proceedings Has Formed An Opinion After Seeking Explanation & After Examining The Present Issue Of Factoring Of Income U/S.143(3) Of The Act. Hence, Now Reopening Is Bad In Law. The Assessee Also Raised The Interconnected Issue, Which Is On Merits That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Beig Factoring Income In The Hands Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Ms. M. Lavanya, FCA &For Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

order dated 27.09.2017. 2. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to assumption of jurisdiction by the AO for reopening of assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act, as the AO during the original assessment proceedings has formed an opinion after seeking explanation and after examining ... interest and accrual of this certain amount of Rs.285.77 lakhs has escaped assessment and hence, notice u/s.148 of the Act for reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2017. Apart from the above issue, there were two other issues of commission to directors of Rs.10.50 lakhs

P. Ravichandran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 582/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 582/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dr. P. Ravichandran, The Deputy Commissioner No.3, Second Link Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Raghava Reddy Colony, Central Circle – 1(3), Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 083. Pan: Aahpr 0455M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 54B

first issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of assumption of jurisdiction by the AO for reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act and confirmed by the CIT(A). For this, assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1.2 The CIT (Appeals) erred in not following ... valid material to reopen assessment. 1.3 The CIT (Appeals) erred in stating that there was no requirement for any fresh material to reopen an assessment if notice was issued within 4 years of assessment, without noticing that AO cannot review his own decision. 1.4 The CIT (Appeals) failed to note

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1191/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 963 (SC) the assessee filed revised returns showing higher income after search and notice for reopening of assessment, to purchase peace and avoid litigation and Department simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the I.T.A. No. 327/Del/2014 Assessment year