“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

Rani Goenka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1414/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

transferred/redeemed on 18.04.2011 and redemption of proceeds was to the tune of Rs. 69,33,459/- this was the basis for the reopening of assessment of the assessee. The notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.03.2019 which was duly served the said notice remained non-complied with. During the course ... before us. 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee took us through the reason recorded to reopen the assessment which were informed to the assessee vide letter dated 13.11.2019noting and stating therein that the assessee was maintaining a savings bank account No. 400710110002120 with

Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1034/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Inder Paul Bansal & Sri.Vivek BansalFor Respondent: Sri.Nilanjan Dey, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153ASection 250

paper book of 34 pages, the assessee has filed case laws relied on. The learned AR has filed written submissions challenging the reopening of assessment and also on merits. The gist of the written submissions on the validity of reassessment are as follows:- (i) Order dated 07.11.2016 cannot be considered ... date of hearing fixed vide show cause notice). During the course of hearing he asked the copy of the reasons recorded for the reopening the assessment by quoting case law laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of M/s.GKN Driveshaft v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19. The copy

Gandhinagar District Co.Op.Milk Producers Union Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Circle Gandhinaga, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 512/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Dr. DArsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in reopening the assessment under Section. 147 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of reopening is without jurisdiction ... Doshi vs. CIT - (1978) 113 ITR 22 (Guj) in support of the above contention. 9. On going through the reasons for reopening of assessment, we observe that there is no specific allegation that there is any non-disclosure on part of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings

M/S Vora Financial Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissionr of Income Tax, Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3835/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.3835/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2012-13) M/S.Vora Financial Services Private Limited, 081, 806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Perin Nariman St., Bazar Gate, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacv-1975-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cir. 2(3)(1) Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020. ....."ितवादी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, Advocate with Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon

Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 148

Scan Steel Ltd. (vii) VMS Industries Ltd. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submits that in grounds of appeal the assessee has assailed reopening of assessment as well as addition on merits. He submitted that since, the assessee has a good case on merits he would be confining his submissions ... liability. 4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the documents on record. The Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on the ground that the assessee has indulged in sale and purchase of penny stocks to obtain bogus gains/loss. At the outset we observe that

M/S Singh Construction Co., Patiala vs. ACIT, Circle, Patial

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1120/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipen Sethi, Advocate and Shri Shashi Bhushan Galav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 68

other items to make fresh assessment - CIT v. D. N. Dosani [2006] 280 ITR 275 (Guj.)(HC) ii) Revision is not like reopening of assessment, entire assessment is not opened before the Assessing Officer - Geometric Software Solutions Co. Ltd. v.ACIT [2009] 32 SOT 428 (Mum.)(Trib.). 18. It was accordingly

Pincity Jewlhouse Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT, CC, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 63/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik, CIT

Section 10ASection 147Section 253(5)Section 263Section 5

issue was also raised and explained during the course of assessment proceedings and being satisfied no adverse view was taken and thus reopening of assessment on this ground is merely a change of opinion which is not permissible under section 147. Thus, the view of the PCIT is based

Vijay Pal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3033/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3033/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Vijay Pal, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-4(4), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Anvpp7279G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3031/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Raj Singh, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-3(3), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Bjdps1075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3032/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito Hariom, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-2(1), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Afuph1298A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

contention of the Assessees that the ITOs at Gurgaon who had issued notices to these Assessees u/s. 148 of the Act for reopening their assessments did not have any jurisdiction over them for they were under the charge of the Salary Circle AOs. It was also ... counter affidavit do not in any way explain the patent illegality in invoking the powers under Section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment of the Assessee for AY 2007- 08. The mere fact that the definition of an Assessing Officer in terms of Section

Hariom, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3032/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

Raj Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3031/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

Altaf Hafij Pathan, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 887/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 154Section 250(6)

been engaged in the business since more than 15 years and operates from Vadodara, Gujarat. 2. The Appellant received a notice for reopening of assessment proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act on 17.03.2017 i.e. beyond a period of 4 years and as per the provisions of Section

Altaf Hafij Pathan, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 886/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 154Section 250(6)

Abdul Samad, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle -1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 661/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.661/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Abdul Samad, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 35, Chicken Market, Amman Koil Income Tax, Street, Broadway, Chennai 600 001. Central Circle 1(1), [Pan:Advpa3535G] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income On 29.09.2009 Admitting Income At ₹.3,60,990/-. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Was Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. S.S. Hyderabad Biryani Pvt. Ltd., Old No. 35, 1St Floor, Amman Koil Street, Near Chicken

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

assessment for the assessment year 2009-10 and a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued after recording the reasons for reopening of assessment. The assessee, has not filed the return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act nor furnished any reply ... counsel for the 3 I.T.A. No.661/Chny/23 assessee has submitted that in the grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised a legal issue of reopening of assessment, which is not valid and to further strengthen, the assessee filed a petition under Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, seeking permission

Ksj Infrastructure Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

ITA 1110/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1110/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Ksj Infrastructure The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Grant Lane, Room Central Circle -1(1), No. 218, Kolkata – 700 012. Chennai – 600 0034. [Pan:Aadcc-5913-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Rama Krishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. B. Rama Krishnan, FCA and Shri. Shrenik Chordia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)Section 153CSection 234BSection 68

violation of principles of natural justice. 2. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 153C of the Act which is void-ab-initio since barred by limitation as per the applicable provisions of third proviso to Section 153B ... Delhi). The relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) are as under: “9.1 Ground 2 is raised agitating the reopening of assessment u/s 153C arguing that the sarne is bad in law. Section 153A lays down the provisions for the assessment of 'searched person' whereas Section 153C deals with

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

accorded the approval in a mechanical manner ashe has failed to notice these mistakes while granting approval. In our opinion, the said casual reopening of assessement can not be allowed as by resorting to the reopening of assessment the revenue unsettles the already settled assessment. The case of the assessee

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1438/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1437/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

money Rs.34,11,55,800/-into his bank account(s) in the guise of cash sales.” The variation between the ground taken for reopening the assessment and issuing notice under section 148A(b) and in the completion of the assessment invalidates the entire assessment order. A copy of the notice ... necessarily assess or reassess the income which escape assessment and on the basis of which reasonable belief was formed to reopen the assessment. It is only assessing such income that it would be open to the assessing officer to assess any other income which comes to his notice during

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Continental Foundation Joint Venture, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the additional ground raised by the assessee under Rule-27 is allowed

ITA 111/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2006-07]

Section 147Section 148Section 40

Therefore, our finding given in Assessment Year 2006-07 on this issue, while quashing the assessment shall apply in this year also. Accordingly, reopening of assessment year 2006-07 u/s 147 of the Act is quashed. 21. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the additional ground

Continental Foundation Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the additional ground raised by the assessee under Rule-27 is allowed

ITA 2677/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2006-07]

Section 147Section 148Section 40

Aditya Birla Private Equity Trust, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai)

Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Bleand

Section 1Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHRY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND