← 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

Shri Vipulbhai Haribhai Marvaniya, Junagadh vs. The ITO Ward-2, Junagadh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/RJT/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

erred in not deciding the ground of appeal regarding validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961. That reopening of assessment is bad in law and therefore the same shall be quashed. 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming

Late Mr. Shankar Mukund Shenai Through His Legal Heir Sangeetha Samir Koppikar, Mum vs. ITO-23(3)(3), Mum

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

ITA 3241/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3241/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम Late Shri Shankar Mukund Income Tax Officer, 23 (3) Shenai (3) Vs. (Through His Legal Heir Room No.108, Sangeetha Samir Koppikar) Matrumandirtardeo, Grant Flat No. 1202, Anish Tower Road Senapatibapat Marg, Next To Mumbai-400 007 Ruparel College Matunga (W) Mumbai-400 018 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जी. आइ. आर. सं/.Pan/Gir No.Aahps4468D अपीलार्थी / Appellant .. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Puru Jain & Shri RajendrakumarFor Respondent: Shri Anil K. Das
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee drew our attention to the legal issue raised by the assessee against the reopening of assessment for assessment year 2009-10. And since, it is a legal issue, we will deal with it first. P a g e | 2 LATE SHRI ... deceased assessee and after considering the same, came to the conclusion that the notice issued in the name of the dead person for reopening of assessment is null and void in law. 7. The issue of a notice under Section 148 of the Act is a foundation for reopening

Farah Naaz & Others (L/H of Ghulam Nezami), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1889/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Bhatt, CA
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

valid service of notice under section 148 within the limitation period. The ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer after recording reasons for reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act on 18.03.2016 issued notice on 28.03.2016 in the name of deceased assessee Shri Ghulam Nezami and on receipt

ACIT Circle-11(2), New Delhi vs. Humboldt Wedag India Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/DEL/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

formation of belief towards alleged escapement. On appraisal of the reasons so recorded for exercise of drastic powers conferred under S. 147 for reopening of assessment for AY 2006-07 in question, it is self evident that there is no allegation whatsoever in the reasons recorded that there

Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1299/DEL/2020[206-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

formation of belief towards alleged escapement. On appraisal of the reasons so recorded for exercise of drastic powers conferred under S. 147 for reopening of assessment for AY 2006-07 in question, it is self evident that there is no allegation whatsoever in the reasons recorded that there

Dy, CIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Epc Offshore Subsea Projects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3834/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Biswanath DasFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

initiated only on reappraisal of the material already on record and on account of mere ‘change in opinion’ which cannot be reason for reopening of assessment. Therefore, in our view, in absence of any fresh tangible material the Assessing Officer was not justified initiating reassessment proceedings as the Assessment under

Stratejic Manufactures India LLP, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 38(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1942/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151

reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. The text and words used by the A in the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment clearly show that the A proceeded to initiatory assessment proceedings and reopening of assessment without having any valid satisfaction and only on the basis

M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas & Co., Surat vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 185/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 69C

Gupta without making any further inquiry and investigation. From bare reading of reasons recorded, we also observe that the AO went on to reopen the assessment with a genuine intention to make protective addition pertaining to the accommodation entries alleged to be provided by the appellant company ... retracted statement of Shri Subodh Gupta, CA without making any further inquiry or investigation. We also hold that the AO proceeded to reopen the assessment of the assessee company for making protective assessment/addition but no substantive assessment existed on the date of assumption of jurisdiction

Shri Arun Narula, Ferozepur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 14/ASR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 80C

mind rather he has acted in the direction of the ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana issued u/s 150(1) of the Act to reopen the assessments of the appellant-assessee in respect of assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 meaning thereby the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessments ... Bhaghubabu (supra) we conclude that Ld. CIT(A) has no power under the provision of law for giving any direction to AO for reopening of assessment. The appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is confined to the particular assessment year which is before him. Thus, in view of the above proposition

Shri Arun Narula, Ferozepur vs. Assistant Commissioner Ofd Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 13/ASR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 80C

mind rather he has acted in the direction of the ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana issued u/s 150(1) of the Act to reopen the assessments of the appellant-assessee in respect of assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 meaning thereby the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessments ... Bhaghubabu (supra) we conclude that Ld. CIT(A) has no power under the provision of law for giving any direction to AO for reopening of assessment. The appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is confined to the particular assessment year which is before him. Thus, in view of the above proposition

Shri Arun Narula, Frozepur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 12/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 80C

mind rather he has acted in the direction of the ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana issued u/s 150(1) of the Act to reopen the assessments of the appellant-assessee in respect of assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 meaning thereby the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessments ... Bhaghubabu (supra) we conclude that Ld. CIT(A) has no power under the provision of law for giving any direction to AO for reopening of assessment. The appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is confined to the particular assessment year which is before him. Thus, in view of the above proposition

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment only for verification of investment made by the appellant. 7. The appellant craves to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal ... case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd (supra) is distinguishable on the facts that the notice for reopening of assessment in that case was issued within a period of four years and hence the provisions of section 149(1)(b) are not applicable. Judicially following the principles

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment only for verification of investment made by the appellant. 7. The appellant craves to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal ... case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd (supra) is distinguishable on the facts that the notice for reopening of assessment in that case was issued within a period of four years and hence the provisions of section 149(1)(b) are not applicable. Judicially following the principles

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment only for verification of investment made by the appellant. 7. The appellant craves to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal ... case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd (supra) is distinguishable on the facts that the notice for reopening of assessment in that case was issued within a period of four years and hence the provisions of section 149(1)(b) are not applicable. Judicially following the principles

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment only for verification of investment made by the appellant. 7. The appellant craves to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal ... case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd (supra) is distinguishable on the facts that the notice for reopening of assessment in that case was issued within a period of four years and hence the provisions of section 149(1)(b) are not applicable. Judicially following the principles

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Ravindra Bharathi Educational Society, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.160/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2018-19) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ravindra Bharathi Income Tax, Educational Society, Central Circle-1, D.No.23/812, Ravindra 3Rd Floor, Raj Kamal Complex, Bharathi Bhavan, Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Fathekhanpet, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh-524003. Pan: Aaaar 2715 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 21/Viz/2022 (आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.160/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2018-19 ) M/S. Ravindra Bharathi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Educational Society, Income Tax, D.No.23/812, Ravindra Bharathi Central Circle-1, Bhavan, Fathekhanpet, Nellore, 3Rd Floor, Raj Kamal Complex, Andhra Pradesh-524003. Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Pan: Aaaar 2715 E ( Cross Objector) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 23/05/2023 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 12ASection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

erroneous both on the facts and in law. 5 2. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in stating that reopening the assessment U/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts when stating that reopening the assessment ... made due to miscomprehension of facts and low profits of margins were correctly justified and recorded. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the reopening of assessment was bad in law, invalid and unsustainable in law as it is based on the admission during the survey and not based

Sumer Chand Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9702/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

appellate order. On consideration thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) decided both the issues against the assessee. 9. On the issue of reopening the assessment, the Ld. CIT(A) observed thus in para 4.3 of his order “There is no merit in the contention of the appellant. It is observed that ... Central Circle-4, Surat without application of independent mind has also been found to be without merit by the Ld. CIT(A). The reopening of assessment has taken place after following due procedure as per law. We decline to interfere. 14. As regards the impugned addition to the income

Govindbhai L. Kakadia, Mumbai vs. JCIT-19(2), Mumbai

ITA 310/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2023AY 2006-07
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

Appellant under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2006-07. Vide letter, dated 02/07/2014, the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment for the Assessment Year 2006-07 were furnished to the Appellant wherein it was stated that information was received by the Govt. of India that ... proceedings were initiated by invoking provisions of Section 147, 148 read with Section 149(c) of the Act. The Appellant filed objections to reopening of assessment vide letter, dated 04/11/2014, which were rejected by the Assessing Officer. Further, Assessing Officer proceeded to frame Assessment Order, dated 25/03/2015, passed under Section

Shri Rameshbhai R. Dodiya, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 268/RJT/2017[2008-9]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 May 2023

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Rajkot [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] erred on facts as also in law in rejecting the ground of appeal relating to reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"]. 3.0 The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also

I G International Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 146/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 142 To 146/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) I.G. International Private Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(3) Limited, 802, 8Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Akshar Bluechip Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, Thane Belapur Mumbai - 400020 Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400705 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci2508Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora Respondent By : V.S. Mahajan Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): All These 5 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Against Two Different Combined Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Are Based On Identical Fact & Similar Issue, Therefore, For The Sake Convenience All These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 146/Mum/2023 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals Wherever Applicable. “1. The Learned Assessing Officer, Erred In Reopening Assessment Under Section 147 Without Jurisdiction Based On Surmises & Conjectures. Learned Cit(A)-47 Erred In Confirming The Same.

For Appellant: Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: V.S. Mahajan
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

taxmann 117 (Bombay) to contend that when no addition was made by the A.O on the ground on which reopening of assessment was based then he cannot made additions on other ground. After taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, we consider that A.O has discussed the issue