“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

Falguni Samir Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1310/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Falguni Samir Mehta, Acit-19(1), 303, Mansarovar, Mount Pleasant Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400006. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007. Pan No. Abeps 6347 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Gosalia / Isha ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Prakash D Choughule, Sr DR

Section 148Section 69C

expenditure at all. 3. Reopening without application of mind 3. Reopening without application of mind The Id CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of assessment by the Id AO on The Id CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of assessment by the Id AO on The Id CIT(A) erred ... confirming reopening of assessment by the Id AO on the ground that app the ground that appellant understated her income by inflating purchases ellant understated her income by inflating purchases by taking accommodation entry in the form of bogus purchases, which is by taking accommodation entry in the form

M/S. Doit Creations (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1354/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdoit Creations (India) Vs. Principal Commissioner Private Limited Of Income Tax, Central 307 & 308, 3Rd Floor,, Circle 3, Room No. 1901, Midas, Sahar Plaza, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (East) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 069 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd8695A Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Dharan Gandhi Respondent By : Neena Jeph Date Of Hearing 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit(Central), Mumbai -3, Dated 31.03.2022 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Pr.Cit Central - 3 (Herein After Referred As 'Pcit) Erred In Invoking Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As 'The Act') By Issuing The Notice Inspite Of The Fact That Assessment U/S. 143(3) & U/S 143(3) R.Ws 147 Of The Act Has Been Completed After Due Examination & Application Of Mind While Framing The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) & U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The Act. Further Order U/S 263 Is Also Passed Merely Setting Aside The Assessment To The File Of The Learned Assessing Officer To Conduct Proper Inquiry Which Is Unjustified. It Is Therefore Submitted That The Order Passed U/S 263 Should Be Cancelled.

For Appellant: Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

escapement of income of Rs.30,26,55,931/- within the meaning of Sec. 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the case was reopened and assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was finalized on 18.12.2019 after considering the various submission filed by the assessee in response to the notices ... escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961.” The assessee has objected the reopening of assessment vide letter dated 23.08.2019 that the whole issue was examined vide assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act. During the course reassessment the assessee has again made

Shri Dharminder Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Oficer, Ward-4 (1), Amritsar

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

ITA 127/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mohit Kumar Nigam, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2Section 69

appeal on merits of the case. 4. The assessee has challenged two issues in the ground of appeal pertaining primarily to validity of reopening of assessment and secondly the source of income is being explained from agricultural land as exempted. 5. The case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny

Showtime Events India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4239/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Raghvendra Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

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 ... passed by him indicated the basis on which income exigible to tax had in his opinion escaped assessment. The argument that the proposed reopening of assessment was based only upon a change of opinion has not impressed us. The assessment order did not admittedly address itself to the question which

Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra, Padampua vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1, Kailash Heights

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 424/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani (C.A)&For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 24Section 253(3)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of ld. AO of reopening the assessment u/s 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts ... Income. III. Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the above additions by passing an ex-parte order dated 28.09.2022. GROUNDS OF APPEAL GROUND NO.1: REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT GROUND NO.2: NOT PROVIDING COPY OF REASONS RECORDED 1. ASSESSING OFFICER Ld. AO reopened the case of the assessee

Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 784/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Citicorp Trustee Company बिधम/ Dcit (International Ltd. As Trustee For Fccb Taxation)-2(1)(1) Vs. Issued By Jindal Saw Ltd. 17Th Floor, 1713, Air India Citigroup Centre, Canada Building, Nariman Point, Square, Canary Wharf Mumbai-400021. London E14 5Lb United Kingdom. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc0452D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anish Thackar/Nikhil Tiwari/Lekh Mehta Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Dated 19.01.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice The Ground No. 2 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Without Satisfying The Essential Condition Prescribed Under The Act; & Therefore Contends That The Action Of The Ao Is Ab-Initio-Void. 3. In Order To Examine The Legal Issue Raised By The Assessee, It Is Necessary To Look Into The Reasons Recorded By Ao To Reopen The Assessment Which Is Reproduced As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thackar/NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)Section 6

notice the ground no. 2 wherein the assessee has raised the legal issue against the action of the AO to have reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act without satisfying the essential condition prescribed under the Act; and therefore contends that the action of the AO is ab-initio ... order to examine the legal issue raised by the assessee, it is necessary to look into the reasons recorded by AO to reopen the assessment which is reproduced as under: - 2 A.Y. 2014-15 Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd. “The assessee Citcorp Trustee Company Ltd, has not filed return of income

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

ITA 703/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Id. A.O. erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 which is merely due to change of opinion and therefore the reopening is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances ... case and in law the Id. A.O. erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 dated 26.03.2019 which is barred by limitation in view of the first proviso to section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant

M/S. Jet Speed Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 32 (1), Mumbai

ITA 63/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

issues contended by the assessee through various grounds for all the assessment years are – 2 ITAs 23,24 & 63/Mum/2022 Jet Speed Realtors (i) Reopening of assessment beyond 4 years without satisfying the pre- requisites under the First Proviso to section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961(in short ... both on legal grounds and also on merits. 5. We will first consider the legal issue contended by the assessee in which the reopening of assessment made by the Assessing Officer is contended to be bad in law since the pre-requisite under the First Proviso to section

Jet Speed Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 32(1), Mumbai

ITA 24/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Jet Speed Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 32 (1), Mumbai

ITA 23/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Nakoda Metal Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4958/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 254(2)

surmises. In this respect, it is settled legal position that in a case where there was no assessment or re-assessment prior to reopening of assessment, even if all the material facts are disclosed in the return of income already filed, reopening can be initiated, if the Assessing Officer ... also made available in public domain i.e. in the official website of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department and therefore the reasons for reopening the assessment are not based on mere suspicion. Thus, all the conditions necessary for reopening of the assessment under the provisions of sec. 147 and for issue

Mirnal Mehta, Cuttack vs. ITO Wrd-2(4), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

bank account in his return including the cash 7 deposits and the same having not been shown, the AO was right in reopening the assessment. 6. Ld. Sr. DR has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of TechSpan India (P.) Ltd., reported ... uploaded along with the return. 15. Now, let us try to find out if the live link can be connected with the reopening of assessment and the reasons recorded for the purpose of reopening. The AO in his reasons recorded has mentioned that the said bank account maintained with State

DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal vs. Trishla Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed on this ground

ITA 2468/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of learned AO in reopening the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, which is bad in law. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that ... reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment are being supplied to you as under:- "Reasons for issue of Notice under section 148 for reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. “1. The assessee company has derived income from business of real estate. The return of income

Trishla Buildtech Pvt Ltd, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle Karnal, Haryana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed on this ground

ITA 2093/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4973/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Contesting the correctness of the notice u/s. 148 of I.T. 'Act, 1961 & resultant reopening of assessment before the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not the remedy permitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Otherwise also had there been such ... correct income of the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee contended that if such a view was taken, the provisions for reopening in assessment available under section 147/148 and/or setting aside of the order on the ground that it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as available