← 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

Tikkavarapu Vinayak Ravi Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1838/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

learned CIT (A) on the following two grounds: “1. The notice issued by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and the reopening of assessment is not in accordance with the provisions of I.T law in as much as there is no tangible material on record. 2. The Assessing Officer

Tikkavarapu Vinayak Ravi Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1836/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

learned CIT (A) on the following two grounds: “1. The notice issued by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and the reopening of assessment is not in accordance with the provisions of I.T law in as much as there is no tangible material on record. 2. The Assessing Officer

Pooja Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-29(2)(5), (Current Juridiction: Ward-41(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3690/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3690/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Pooja Developers बिधम/ Ito-29(2)(5) Shop No. 4 (Damini Wines) [Current Jurisdiction Vs. Shiv Shakti Building, Jn Ward 41(1)(3), Mumbai] Road, Near Apna Bazar, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400080. Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaifp5595M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Snehal Shah Revenue By: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801B(10)Section 80I

impugned assessment year is before the expiry of four years from the relevant assessment year, however, the validity of the reopening of assessment has to be one tested keeping in view the following factors. Firstly, whether the issue on which the assessment was re-opened as per the reasons recorded ... available on record clearly establish that there was no tangible material available before the Assessing Officer at the time of recording reasons for reopening the assessment that income chargeable to tax has either escaped assessment or has been under assessed. It is evident, on re-examination of the very same

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1(4), Kolkata vs. K Kalpana Industries India Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 816/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 815 & 816/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income K Kalpana Industries India Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kolkata 28, Pretoria Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabck2239D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 25/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days & 11 Days In Filing Of These Appeals By The Department For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. After Hearing The Ld. D/R We Are Convinced That It Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals On Time. Though The Department Has Not Filed Any Petition/Application For Condonation, The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Sesh Nath Singh & Ors. V. Baidyabati · Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 28Section 5

held to be valid. We observe that the ld. CIT(A) has examined this aspect in detail and has rightly held the reopening of assessment as invalid observing as follows:- “I have duly considered appellant's objections on technical issues and also carefully perused the facts on records

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. K Kalpana Industries India Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 815/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 815 & 816/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income K Kalpana Industries India Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kolkata 28, Pretoria Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabck2239D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 25/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days & 11 Days In Filing Of These Appeals By The Department For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. After Hearing The Ld. D/R We Are Convinced That It Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals On Time. Though The Department Has Not Filed Any Petition/Application For Condonation, The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Sesh Nath Singh & Ors. V. Baidyabati · Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 28Section 5

held to be valid. We observe that the ld. CIT(A) has examined this aspect in detail and has rightly held the reopening of assessment as invalid observing as follows:- “I have duly considered appellant's objections on technical issues and also carefully perused the facts on records

Priyasha Meven Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3814/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3814/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) Priyasha Meven Finance बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(2)(1) Ltd Room No. 642/669, Vs. R 404 Rotunda Building, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Bombay Samachar Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Fort-400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp2042F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mani Jain Revenue By: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 28.08.2023 For Ay. 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Had Not Taken This Legal Issue Before The Ld. Cit(A). However, According To Him, Since It Is A Legal Issue, It Can Be Raised For The First Time Before This Tribunal & For Such A Preposition Relied Upon The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ntpc Vs. Cit (229 Itr 383) (Sc). Per Contra, The Ld. Dr Objects To Raising Of This Legal Issue Before This Tribunal For The First Time. According To Him, The Assessee Had Not Taken Up This Issue Before The Ld. Cit(A), Therefore, The Same Should Be Remanded Back To The File Of The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

recorded reasons suffers from non-application of mind of AO while he recorded the reasons for re-opening the assessment, which vitiates the reopening of assessment. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned action of the AO to re-open the assessment is bad in law and therefore the notice issued ... have heard both the parties and perused the records. Since the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of AO to have reopened the assessment, the “reasons recorded” by AO need to be examined to see whether he had satisfied the conditions precedent necessary for re- opening the assessment u/s Section