“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

Simcorp Fund Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3340/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

have heard both the parties and perused the records. Since the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of AO to have reopened the assessment, we need to examine the ‘reasons recorded’ by AO need to be examined to see whether he had satisfied the conditions precedent necessary for doing ... prescribed u/s Section 147 of the Act i.e. Firstly whether AO has recorded the reasons before reopening the assessment. And if so, whether the reasons recorded fulfil the requirement of law or not. The fundamental requirement of law as stipulated u/s 147 of the Act is that before reopening

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7755/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

formation of belief that income has escaped assessment. Sufficiency of such information cannot be done into while deciding the issue of validity of reopening. The Assessing Officer can also not make enquiries as view of the matter, we are in agreement with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that ... reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act was valid.” In the present case, the live ling between the material available on record and the reasons for belief that income has escaped assessment has also been sufficiently demonstrated. To conclude, I have examined the entire gamut of facts

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7754/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Guntur vs. Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 217/VIZ/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.217/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Income Tax Housing Corporation Ltd., Circle-1(1) Plot No.11 & 12, Nirman Guntur Bhavan, Near Apiic Colony Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aabca7206L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 40

appeal of the assessee, holding that the proceedings u/s 147 / 148 are not valid, since at the time of issuance of notice for reopening of assessment, proceedings u/s 154 of the Act are still pending before the AO. The Ld.DR further submitted that the decision is distinguishable, 4 I.T.A. No.217/Viz/2023

M/S. Nti Housing Co-Operative Society, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed

ITA 829/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 80P(2)(d)

this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 827/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2011-12 3. The appellant has challenged the reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Act on the ground that the same is beyond the period of 4 years on already completed assessment. Neither there ... failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all the material facts for its assessment while recording reasons for reopening of assessment as of the basic conditions or that there is any new or fresh materials available for reopening of an already concluded assessment

M/S. Nti Housing Co-Operative Society, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed

ITA 828/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 80P(2)(d)

Nti Housing Co-Operative Society, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed

ITA 827/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 80P(2)(d)

Dy, Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Glint Infraporjects Private .Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee, are dismissed

ITA 2166/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Glint Infraprojects Private Tax, Limited Central Circle 3(4), 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No.1915, 19T Floor, Vs. 37-40 Subash Rd, Vile Parle Air India Building, (E), Mumbai-400 057 Nariman Point-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcg5620L Co No. 131/Mum/2023 (Arising In Ita No.2166/Mum/2023 For A.Y. 12-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Glint Infraprojects Private Tax, Limited Central Circle 3(4), 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No.1915, 19T Floor, Vs. 37-40 Subash Rd, Vile Parle Air India Building, (E), Mumbai-400 057 Nariman Point-400 021 (Appellant/ Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Kabra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Mirza Azhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02..2024

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Assessing Officer restored.” 03. Assessee has also filed a cross objection in CO No.131/Mum/2023, challenging the action of the learned Assessing Officer reopening the assessment order under Section 147 of the Act, upheld by the learned CIT (A). assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts ... circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.” 04. Brief facts shows that i. Assessee is a company engaged in construction

Alka Dilip Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Investigation wing, the AO took the view that the long term capital gains declared by the assessee is not genuine one and accordingly reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. 3. It was noticed that the assessee had purchased 40000 shares of Sunrise Asian ... direct the AO to delete the impugned additions made by him. 24. The assessee has also raised a ground challenging the validity of reopening of assessment. Since we have decided the grounds urged on merits in favour of the assessee, this legal issue shall become academic in nature. Hence

Snr Electronics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 937/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292CSection 68Section 69C

escaped the assessment in the case of appellant. Whether information received from Investigation Wing can be a basis for reopening the assessment proceedings or not, has been answered by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case AGR Investment Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT & Anr. 333 ITR 146, wherein ... received by Assessing Officer from Investigation Wing regarding entry taken by assessee from entry, provider with specific details was a valid ground for reopening the assessment. It has been further held by Hon'ble Court that at the stage when reasons are recorded for reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer

Hindustan Aqua Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3043/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usm/S. Hindustan Aqua Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Circle-12(1), Market, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaach3298J

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 72

verified. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee sought for furnishing of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment which were duly furnished. The assessee filed its objections for the reasons recorded and also provided the details of losses available with the assessee ... Since, the relief is granted to the assessee on merits, the other legal grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of reopening of assessment need not be gone into and the same are hereby left open. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced

Jitesh Jitendra Sakhidas, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30 (1) (5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3112/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69B

escapement of income. Attention may be drawn to the decision of the Hon, Bombay High Court on the issue of tangible material for reopening of assessment in the case of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (WP No. 502 of 2012 dated 10/11th January 2013) wherein it was held

Crosseas Capital Services Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT(Central)-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed

ITA 3420/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Crosseas Capital Assistant Commissioenr Of Services P. Ltd., Income Tax (Central Suite 37, 5Th Floor, Circle)-2(4), Martin Burn House, Vs. 802, 8Th Floor, 1 Rn Mukherjee Road, Pratishtha Bhavan, Kolkata, Old Cgo Annexe, West Bengal - 700 001 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aaccc5470H Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina , A.R. & Shri Maneck Andhyarujina, Ar. Revenue By : Shri H.M. Bhatt, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : All These Four Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19 &

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina , A.R. &For Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, D.R

Section 234BSection 250Section 37(1)

reasons recorded and it is clearly established that the AO has not made any addition on the issue which was subject matter of reopening the assessment in the case of the assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel has also referred the decision ... Gujarat) wherein it has been 7 ITA No.3417/M/2023 & ors. M/s. Crosseas Capital Services P. Ltd. held that when on ground on which reopening of assessment was based, no addition was made by the AO, he could not make addition on some other grounds which did not form part of reasons

Crosseas Capital Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 3419/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 234BSection 250Section 37(1)

reasons recorded and it is clearly established that the AO has not made any addition on the issue which was subject matter of reopening the assessment in the case of the assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel has also referred the decision ... case of CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 30 taxmann.com 1 (Gujarat) wherein it has been held that when on ground on which reopening of assessment was based, no addition was made by the AO, he could not make addition on some other grounds which did not form part

Crosseas Capital Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Central-2(4), Mumba

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed

ITA 3418/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina , A.R. &For Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, D.R

Section 234BSection 250Section 37(1)

Crosseas Capital Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Central -2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 3417/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, D.R

Section 234BSection 250Section 37(1)

reasons recorded and it is clearly established that the AO has not made any addition on the issue which was subject matter of reopening the assessment in the case of the assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel has also referred the decision ... case of CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 30 taxmann.com 1 (Gujarat) wherein it has been held that when on ground on which reopening of assessment was based, no addition was made by the AO, he could not make addition on some other grounds which did not form part

Shanno Mohammed Yusuf Warsi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 1306/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Pankaj SoniFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 68Section 69C

what are the activities of the company. its financial position or what are the activities of the company. Assessing Officer sought to reopen assess Assessing Officer sought to reopen assessment in case of appellant on ment in case of appellant on ground that appellant, during relevant period had purchased shares ... There formation of belief that income chargeable to tax had company. There formation of belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, reopening of assessment was just escaped assessment, reopening of assessment was justified. Reliance ified. Reliance is placed on the decision of High Court of Rajasthan

Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 13 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3712/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 21, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds: “A) Reopening of assessment 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 21, Mumbai (CITA)] erred on facts and in law in not dealing with the Additional Grounds ... whereby the appellant had M/s Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd. 2 M/s Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd. challenged the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the challenged the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the challenged the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act. tax Act. 2. The appellant

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

Bench stated that the issue in this appeal of Revenue is falling under the proviso to section 147 of the Act and reopening of assessment u/s.148 of the Act. 11. Brief facts are that the assessee company filed its original return of income on 27.09.2009 for the relevant assessment year ... account. Accordingly, reassessment was framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 15.03.2016. The assessee required the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment which was supplied by the Revenue vide letter dated 29.09.2015 for reopening of assessment, which reads as under:- "On verification of Balance sheet

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)