← 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

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ITA 944/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)

assessee also asked reasons for re-opening the assessment. The reasons recorded were forwarded to the assessee. 5.2 The assessee raised objection against reopening the assessment vide letter filed on 18.04.2013 and the objection raised by the assessee reads as follows: 1. It is true that during the period under ... material with regard to trading in marble by the assessee and therefore, very vague reasons were taken by the Id. AO for reopening of assessments. The reasons essentially states that the assessee was in the business of depositing and withdrawing of money from bank account and in the entire reasons

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Sudarshna Somani, Kishangarh

ITA 935/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)

assessee also asked reasons for re-opening the assessment. The reasons recorded were forwarded to the assessee. 5.2 The assessee raised objection against reopening the assessment vide letter filed on 18.04.2013 and the objection raised by the assessee reads as follows: 1. It is true that during the period under ... material with regard to trading in marble by the assessee and therefore, very vague reasons were taken by the Id. AO for reopening of assessments. The reasons essentially states that the assessee was in the business of depositing and withdrawing of money from bank account and in the entire reasons

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Sudarshna Somani, Kishangarh

ITA 934/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)

assessee also asked reasons for re-opening the assessment. The reasons recorded were forwarded to the assessee. 5.2 The assessee raised objection against reopening the assessment vide letter filed on 18.04.2013 and the objection raised by the assessee reads as follows: 1. It is true that during the period under ... material with regard to trading in marble by the assessee and therefore, very vague reasons were taken by the Id. AO for reopening of assessments. The reasons essentially states that the assessee was in the business of depositing and withdrawing of money from bank account and in the entire reasons

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmenr vs. Smt. Sudarshna Somani, Kishangarh

ITA 933/JPR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)

assessee also asked reasons for re-opening the assessment. The reasons recorded were forwarded to the assessee. 5.2 The assessee raised objection against reopening the assessment vide letter filed on 18.04.2013 and the objection raised by the assessee reads as follows: 1. It is true that during the period under ... material with regard to trading in marble by the assessee and therefore, very vague reasons were taken by the Id. AO for reopening of assessments. The reasons essentially states that the assessee was in the business of depositing and withdrawing of money from bank account and in the entire reasons

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Abhishek Kumawat, Kishangarh

ITA 928/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)

assessee also asked reasons for re-opening the assessment. The reasons recorded were forwarded to the assessee. 5.2 The assessee raised objection against reopening the assessment vide letter filed on 18.04.2013 and the objection raised by the assessee reads as follows: 1. It is true that during the period under ... material with regard to trading in marble by the assessee and therefore, very vague reasons were taken by the Id. AO for reopening of assessments. The reasons essentially states that the assessee was in the business of depositing and withdrawing of money from bank account and in the entire reasons

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Abhishek Kumawat, Kishangarh

ITA 927/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)

assessee also asked reasons for re-opening the assessment. The reasons recorded were forwarded to the assessee. 5.2 The assessee raised objection against reopening the assessment vide letter filed on 18.04.2013 and the objection raised by the assessee reads as follows: 1. It is true that during the period under ... material with regard to trading in marble by the assessee and therefore, very vague reasons were taken by the Id. AO for reopening of assessments. The reasons essentially states that the assessee was in the business of depositing and withdrawing of money from bank account and in the entire reasons

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ITA 912/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)

assessee also asked reasons for re-opening the assessment. The reasons recorded were forwarded to the assessee. 5.2 The assessee raised objection against reopening the assessment vide letter filed on 18.04.2013 and the objection raised by the assessee reads as follows: 1. It is true that during the period under ... material with regard to trading in marble by the assessee and therefore, very vague reasons were taken by the Id. AO for reopening of assessments. The reasons essentially states that the assessee was in the business of depositing and withdrawing of money from bank account and in the entire reasons

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ITA 911/JPR/2015[20010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023

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

Section 143(3)

assessee also asked reasons for re-opening the assessment. The reasons recorded were forwarded to the assessee. 5.2 The assessee raised objection against reopening the assessment vide letter filed on 18.04.2013 and the objection raised by the assessee reads as follows: 1. It is true that during the period under ... material with regard to trading in marble by the assessee and therefore, very vague reasons were taken by the Id. AO for reopening of assessments. The reasons essentially states that the assessee was in the business of depositing and withdrawing of money from bank account and in the entire reasons

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmenr, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ITA 910/JPR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)

assessee also asked reasons for re-opening the assessment. The reasons recorded were forwarded to the assessee. 5.2 The assessee raised objection against reopening the assessment vide letter filed on 18.04.2013 and the objection raised by the assessee reads as follows: 1. It is true that during the period under ... material with regard to trading in marble by the assessee and therefore, very vague reasons were taken by the Id. AO for reopening of assessments. The reasons essentially states that the assessee was in the business of depositing and withdrawing of money from bank account and in the entire reasons

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ITA 909/JPR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)

assessee also asked reasons for re-opening the assessment. The reasons recorded were forwarded to the assessee. 5.2 The assessee raised objection against reopening the assessment vide letter filed on 18.04.2013 and the objection raised by the assessee reads as follows: 1. It is true that during the period under ... material with regard to trading in marble by the assessee and therefore, very vague reasons were taken by the Id. AO for reopening of assessments. The reasons essentially states that the assessee was in the business of depositing and withdrawing of money from bank account and in the entire reasons

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Prakash Chand Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ITA 908/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)

assessee also asked reasons for re-opening the assessment. The reasons recorded were forwarded to the assessee. 5.2 The assessee raised objection against reopening the assessment vide letter filed on 18.04.2013 and the objection raised by the assessee reads as follows: 1. It is true that during the period under ... material with regard to trading in marble by the assessee and therefore, very vague reasons were taken by the Id. AO for reopening of assessments. The reasons essentially states that the assessee was in the business of depositing and withdrawing of money from bank account and in the entire reasons

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Prakash Chand Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ITA 907/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)

assessee also asked reasons for re-opening the assessment. The reasons recorded were forwarded to the assessee. 5.2 The assessee raised objection against reopening the assessment vide letter filed on 18.04.2013 and the objection raised by the assessee reads as follows: 1. It is true that during the period under ... material with regard to trading in marble by the assessee and therefore, very vague reasons were taken by the Id. AO for reopening of assessments. The reasons essentially states that the assessee was in the business of depositing and withdrawing of money from bank account and in the entire reasons

Rakesh Kumar Soni, Katni vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 71/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethre, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR
Section 147

Income tax (Appeal) was not justified in not quashing the assessment proceeding as the AO fails to decide the Objection raised regarding the reopening of assessment which is mandatory condition before proceeding to assessment in view of Honble Apex court Judgment in the case of GKN Drive Shaft

Jay Kishore Choubey, Rairangpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Asansol

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2/CTK/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Jay Jay Kishore Kishore Choubey, Choubey, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1, Asansol. Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Acmpc 1759 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Das, Sr. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri P.R.MohantyFor Respondent: Shri Charan Das, Sr
Section 147Section 148

proceedings under section 147 .Explanation 3 to section 147 provides that even though the notice issued under section 148 containing the reasons for reopening the assessment does not contain a reference to a particular issue with reference to which income has escaped assessment, yet the AO may assess or reassess ... Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [2011] 12 taxmann.com 74 (Delhi) – In view of the above factual position of the case, it is found that reopening of assessment is patently illegal and deserves to be quashed. Since we are disposing off this appeal on legal issues, therefore the other grounds raised

Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -Ltu -1, Mumbai

In the result we find that in absence of tangible material, the reopening of assessment cannot be made

ITA 3949/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Bajaj Auto Limited 2N D Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Income-Tax, Vs. 226, Nariman Point, Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb2923M

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 147

Mumbai, (the learned AO), was party allowed. 02. The assessee has raised 20 grounds in this appeal as under:- “Validity of reopening of assessment: Bajaj Auto Ltd; A.Y. 2010-11 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ... erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment under section 147/ 148 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no failure

Balalji Lifestyle Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3172/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3172/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Balaji Lifestyle बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-7(1) Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. 118/120, Ashoka House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai- 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb0234H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. M. Porwal (Adv) Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 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)-49, Mumbai Dated 02.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature So Does Not Require Any Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri N. M. Porwal (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 288ASection 69B

288A 16,34,85,660/- 5. Thereafter, the AO issued impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2014 conveying his desire to reopen the assessment u/s 147 of the Act, alleging escapement of income by recording reasons as under: - 3 A.Y. 2009-10 M/s. Balaji Lifestyle Realtors ... Bhopal Singh Bist) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-40, Mumbai. 6. On the strength of the aforesaid reasons, the AO reopened the assessment and after verification of material facts made an addition of Rs.2,85,50,000/- in his re-assessment order dated 26.03.2015, by taking note

Ge Global Parts & Products Gmbh, Switzerland vs. ACIT Circle 1(3)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 736/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 5

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

Progressive Tools & Components Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Cirlce- 2, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 5053/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 147Section 68

total income at Rs.93,71,655/-. Subsequently, the assessment so completed, was reopened under section 147 of the Act. The basis of reopening of assessment is the alleged unsecured loan of Rs.35 lakhs supposed to have been received from M/s. HES Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd. According to the Assessing Officer

Ashish Sharma, Gopal Pura Bye - Pass Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Statue Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69A

would become void—In the notice under s. 34 the ITO sought to reopen assessment for asst. yr. 1948-49 but in fact reopened the assessment for asst. yr. 1949-50—Notice in question was invalid—ITO had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.". Decision of the Learned ... where in it has been held that:- “7. The issue of a notice under Section 148 of the Act is a foundation for reopening of assessment. The sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that such notice should be issued in the name of the correct

Pravinkumar Pratapchand Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 34(2)(7), Kautilya Bhavan

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

ITA 2576/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Spravinkumarpratapchand Vs Ito, Ward 34(2)(7), Shah,3Rd Floor, 13/15, 746, Kautilya Bhavan, Anantwadi, Atmaram C-41, To C-43, Merchant Road, G-Block Bkc, Chira Bazar, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aapps9017G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Lawanya Rajpurohit.ARFor Respondent: Shri Joginder Singh,. Sr.DR

Diamant Infrastructure Ltd and the assessee is a beneficiary and the Pravinkumar Pratapchand Shah, Mumbai. AO has recorded the reasons for reopening of assessment. The AO found that, the assessee has sold the shares in the F.Y 2011-12 and the aggregate value ... notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act are issued. The assessee was also provided reasons for reopening of assessment and the assessee has filed the objections.Whereas the AO has dealt on the objections and are disposed off. The AO found that the assessee has purchased