“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

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, Cir. 8(1) vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1424/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

needs no adjudication. 4. The issue raised in ground no. 2 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the order of reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) which is invalid and not sustainable in the eyes ... unsecured loan from the said company on which interest of Rs.4,19,178/- was also paid after deduction at source. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 07.03.2019 which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee filed the return

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1423/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

Disha Lalwani Pahwa, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 32(2), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3597/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3596 & 3597/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 68

Ld.CIT(Appeals) – NFAC, Delhi dated 13.10.2023 for the AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. In these two appeals the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on various grounds and also addition made u/s 68/69A of the Act which was sustained by the Ld.CIT

Disha Lalwani Pahwa, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 32(2), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3596/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3596 & 3597/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 68

Kishan Singh, Jhajjar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 768/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarkishan Singh, Vs. Ito, Vpo-Jakhoda, Tehsil- Ward-2, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jajjar, Rohtak Bahadurgarh, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dqlps9421M Assessee By : Shri Naveen Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147

believe that income of the assessee had escaped assessment warranting reopening. Hence, the ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of reopening of assessment is hereby dismissed. 5. The assessee vide ground No. 3 and 4 had challenged the sustenance of addition of ₹13 lakhs towards unexplained investment

Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is allowed and appeal for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1988/MUM/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

addition is uncalled for and not as per law and hence may kindly be deleted.” 2.1. In ground no.1, assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 and has claimed to strike down the re- assessment so completed being bad in law. 3. Brief facts as culled out from ... failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for the assessment. The primary requirement for lawful reopening of assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is absent in the reasons recorded. Therefore, Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey

Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is allowed and appeal for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1987/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

Sapna Agarwal, Darjeeling vs. DCIT, Cir. 1, Jalpaiguri

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1468/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

1467/Kol/2023. In this appeal, the only issue raised at the time of hearing is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) read with sec. 148 of the Act which was invalid ... vehemently argued and submitted before the Bench that the AO has sought to review his order by resorting to the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act because of the same facts/records as were subject matter of reasons recorded u/s. 148(2) of the Act were before

Sapna Agarwal, Siliguri vs. ACIT, Cir. 2, Siliguri

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1467/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

M/S. Saroj Embrods Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1352/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Vide issue raised in ground no. 1, the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act as made by the AO for examination of bogus purchases. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income ... merit. While dismissing the appeal on legal issue the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any finding and simply affirmed the reopening of assessment. 6. The Ld. A.R vehemently submitted before us that the reopening of assessment has been made by AO just to examine the so-called bogus purchases

Saroj Embrods Private Limited., Hooghly vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1351/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Rekha Nilesh Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 32(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2300/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee in appeal has assailed the order of CIT(A) on three counts:- i) Upholding validity of reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). ii) Addition under section 68 of the Act in respect ... that the assessment for assessment year 2013-14 has been reopened merely on borrowed satisfaction. It is a well settled law that for reopening of assessment, the Assessing Officer has to record his own satisfaction, reopening on the basis of borrowed satisfaction is unsustainable. The Assessing Officer merely relied

Saroj Sangwan, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2428/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2428/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

appeal submits that there is no valid assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act for reopening of assessment and, therefore, the reassessment framed by the Assessing Officer who is having jurisdiction over the assessee is bad in law. Ld. Counsel ... Paper Book it is observed that notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2018 was issued by ITO, Ward 69(1), Delhi for reopening of assessment of the assessee. Later on the case was transferred to the ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon, by way of letter dated

Sarita Yadav, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 44(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 9707/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: him, therefore, proceeded to make the assessment u/s 144 r. w. section 147 of the Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). Further, he agreed that several opportunities were given by the Ld. CIT(A) as well and assessee could not represent his case due to non-receipt of the notices, however, he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without deciding Sarita Yadav vs. ITO the issue on merits. On merits, he submitted that the assessee is not th

Section 144Section 147Section 148

Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law in reopening assessment u/s 147 as the notice u/s 148 was not served in time. The reopening of assessment was bad in law. 3. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred

Gunjan Arora, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 450/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 450/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Gunjan Arora, Vs. The Ito, बनाम House No. 633, Ward-5, Mata Mohalla, Vpo Radaur, Yamunanagar Tehsil Jagadhri, Yamunanagar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahlpa1555A अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Dhruv Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 250Section 69

hear the appeal on merits. 4. During the course of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee raised the issue of reopening of assessment u/s 148 and he challenged it on the ground that the assessment was reopened without making any verification and application of mind ... lakhs in assessment order. Hon'ble bench held that reasons were recorded without application of mind and the same made the reopening of assessment to be null and void.” 7. The ld. DR brought it on record that although the figures given in the reasons for reopening of the assessment

Dev Darshan Designs Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 14(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 34/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.34/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dev Darshan Designs Pvt. Ltd.……….......................…...……………....Appellant P-40, 1St Floor, Kajinajrul Islam Avenue, Kolkata-700157. [Pan: Aadcd1890P] Vs. Ito, Ward-14(1), Kolkata….……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.2,67,60,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Protective Basis In Respect Of The Loan Amount Received By The Assessee From One Of Its Director & His Relatives. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

which enables the AO to make a protective assessment/addition. In 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

M/S Guru Awaas Pvt. Ltd., Kolakta vs. ITO, Ward-9(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 227/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Abhisek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the assessment order on several grounds which can be categorised into those related to the reopening of assessment and the addition made and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by holding as under: “5.2. In grounds 1 to 11, the appellant

ITO, WD.9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act was bad in law for want of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment, therefore, the said order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act was non-est, and hence, the subsequent order passed ... order passed u/s 147 of the Act. 6.1 To stress the contention that the defect in jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment and thereby the very validity of the assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act can be agitated in the I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 & C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 Assessment

Synergy Infrastructures, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 4108/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2012-13 Assessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shreyash Shah &For Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad, Sr.AR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

sake of convenience. In both the appeals, the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of ld.CIT(A) in confirming the validity of reopening of assessments and 2 Assessment Year 2012-13 Assessment Year 2013-14 also in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer ... noticed that the assessee has availed loan from the concerns belonging to the above said group. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessments of both the assessment years under consideration u/s 147 of the Act. 3. In the year relevant to the assessment year 2012-13 the assessee had taken

M/S Synergy Infrastructures, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-42(1)(1)

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 4107/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2012-13 Assessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shreyash Shah &For Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad, Sr.AR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C