“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

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 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

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

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Viral Saraf Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1843/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(2) V. Viral Saraf Mittal Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 901/902, Capri Heights Old Cgo Annex Building Palli Hill, Bandra (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Azbps0317C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sidharth Kothari Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

reasons for reopening, it is not respondents' case that in the original assessment order it was missed out. The reasons for reopening of assessment, as held in Aroni Commercials Ltd. (supra), has to be tested/examined only on the basis of the reasons recorded at the time of issuing a notice ... under section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen an assessment. These reasons cannot be improved upon and/or supplemented much less substituted by affidavit and/or oral submissions. Moreover, the reasons for reopening an assessment should be that of the Assessing Officer alone who is issuing the notice and he cannot

Raja Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT 27(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3616/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Chintan Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

prays that the order passed by the ITO be struck down as bad in law. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I: Ground II: Reopening of assessment bad in law 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming the action

M/S. Palan Real Estate Developers Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 827/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 827/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 68

Rules, 1963, to this effect that, as no proper sanction as required under Section 151 of the Act is obtained from the PCIT, reopening of assessment is bad and illegal, therefore, liable to be quashed. 3. The brief facts leading to this case is this that the appellant’s case ... Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before us that the appellant made an application under RTI on 25.10.2023 requesting for reasons recorded for reopening of assessment and the approval granted under Section 151 of the Act whereupon the RTI order dated 24.11.2023 has been provided copy whereof has also been

Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cer-1, Kolkata.

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

ITA 1274/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4

133A of the Income Tax Act was carried out upon the assessee on 01.03.2017. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter recorded the reasons to reopen the assessment. He issued a notice dated 31.03.2018 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. In this notice, the ld. Assessing Officer ... read with section 143(3). According to him, the interdiction provided in the 1st proviso would prohibit the ld. Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment, where assessment has been framed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, and four years have expired from end of A.Y. In other

Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, C.C-1(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1232/KOL/2023[AAACV9131E]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4

Lisamma Sebastian, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Kota

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

ITA 661/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 69A

been credited in the books of account 4 LISAMMA SEBASTIAN VS ITO, WARD 2(2), KOTA 4.5 First ground of appeal is against reopening the assessment. Appellant contended that the AO has erred in re-opening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act as it is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary ... brought to the notice of the AD by audit party and AO of his/her application of mind finds this ground as valid, reopening of assessment cannot be quashed merely because such ground was brought to the notice of AO by the audit party, 5.5.4 The AO is not required

Tanuj Properties Private Limited., Kolkata vs. I.T.O, Ward-9(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1045/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1045/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Tanuj Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Darshan Tradelink Pvt. Ltd……………….…………....Appellant 6Th Floor, Unit-6A, 238A, A.J.C. Bose Road, L.R. Sarani S.O., Kolkata - 700020 [Pan: Aacct4910B] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata…………….................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnine Debarma, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 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 20.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order U/S 147/143(3) Was Passed By The A.O Who Did Not Hold Valid Jurisdiction & Therefore The Impugned Order Being Ab Initio Void Deserves To Be Quashed. B) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued In The Name Of Non-Existent Entity & In

Section 147Section 148Section 250

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the A.O did not satisfy the conditions precedent for reopening of assessment and for recording the reasons to form belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and for that reason the notice issued ... South Yarra Holdings (supra) wherein from same script , the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that it was a case of reopening of assessment on the basis of suspicion of other and not on AO’s own satisfaction. The relevant part is extracted below: 3. For the Assessment Year

Ntpc Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Special Range-06, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1811/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee dated 07.10.2016 after recording reasons for reopening assessment. 5. Reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are as under: 4 6. A perusal of the reasons shows that the Assessing Officer wanted to reassess the completed assessment for the reason ... made by the High Court of Gujarat with which we find ourselves in respectful agreement, the action initiated by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment cannot be said to be either incompetent or otherwise improper to call for interference by a writ court. The Assessing Officer

Ntpc Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Special Range-06, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1810/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 146/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

raised before the Hon'ble ITAT. 1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts reopening of assessment beyond period of four years from end of the relevant assessment year ignoring fact that there is no failure on part of appellant to disclose fully and truly all material ... facts. 2. The reopening of assessment is bad in law and required to be quashed.” 5. Referring to the contents of the above application ld.counsel for the assessee sought admission of the additional ground pointing out that it was a legal ground which could be adjudicated on the basis

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 145/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 144/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

Subhlaxmi Chem Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 992/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 992/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Subhlaxmi Chem Private Limited,...........Appellant R. No. C452, 71, B.R.B,B. Road, Bagri Market, Kolkata-700001 [Pan: Aahcs1598R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-12(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri B.C. Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 15, 2024 O R D E R

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

application money which is nothing but an accommodation entry from M/s. Ajanta Vanijya Pvt. Limited. The ld. Assessing Officer recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment, copy of which is placed on record at pages no. 10-11 of the paper book. On page no. 1 of the reasons ... does not comply with the requirements of proviso to section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment proceedings which were concluded on the basis of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. On this short count alone the impugned notice is liable

Ge Energy Parts Inc, Wildwood Parkway Atlanta Ga Us vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3199/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 44BSection 9(1)(i)Section 90

case of Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, while dealing with the issue of reopening of assessment based on information received from third party, observed, though such information can form basis for an examination/investigation by the Assessing Officer, but the decision ... reopen the assessment has to be of the Assessing Officer and not of the third party. The Assessing Officer cannot merely do a cut and paste job for reopening the assessment without independent application of mind or verification or investigation. The aforesaid ratio laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 38/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw

Section 80Section 80I

present assessee and also directed the AO to consider such finding as direction under section 150 of the Act. 24. Accordingly, the AO reopened the assessment in case of the assessee for AY 2008-09 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30th March 2019. The AO finally ... date of reassessment made u/s.147 of IT Act i.e. 11.08.2016 in the case of both the individuals. But the notice u/s.148 for reopening the assessment in the case of assesses company was issued on 30.03.2019 which is much beyond the time limit allowed u/s.150

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 37/AHD/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw

Section 80Section 80I

Jagdishchandra Kantilal Trivedi, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2273/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

assessment orders passed in the case of other two assessees could not have been attained a finality, there may be proceedings for reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act or revision proceedings u/s.263 of the Act could have been initiated against the above co-owners. Therefore, the sought time

Jolly Maker 1 Prem Co-Op Soc Ltd, Mumbai City vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2828/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: M.V. ChokshiFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

Section 250Section 27Section 60Section 80P

this position was constantly followed till assessment year 2010-11. 11. The assessee further submitted that notice for reopening the assessment was issued u/s 148 of the Act for assessment year 2007- 08 to 2012-13.The Ho’nble Bombay High Court vide order dated 11.02.2022 for assessment year ... clubbed income as representative assessee with that of the society on the instance of the department, thereafter the other notices issued for reopening the assessment were withdrawn by the department. Even the notice u/s 148 issued for reopening of assessment for assessment year 2007-08 was also quashed

Jolly Maker 1 Prem Co-Op Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2827/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: M.V. ChokshiFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

Section 250Section 27Section 60Section 80P