← 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

Jayganga Exim India Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT Central Circle -2, Bhopal

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

principles of natural justice was not sufficient unless supported by cogent material. The learned CIT(A) further examined the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment and noted that the assessee was found to be part of a group of companies linked with Shri Sharad Darak, who ITA No. 580/Ind/2025

Zyka Merchandise Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT Central Circle -2, Bhopal

ITA 564/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

principles of natural justice was not sufficient unless supported by cogent material. The learned CIT(A) further examined the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment and noted that the assessee was found to be part of a group of companies linked with Shri Sharad Darak, who had admitted to providing

Zyka Merchandise Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT Central Circle -2, Bhopal

ITA 563/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

principles of natural justice was not sufficient unless supported by cogent material. The learned CIT(A) further examined the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment and noted that the assessee was found to be part of a group of companies linked with Shri Sharad Darak, who ITA No. 580/Ind/2025

Zyka Merchandise Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT Central Circle -2, Bhopal

ITA 562/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

principles of natural justice was not sufficient unless supported by cogent material. The learned CIT(A) further examined the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment and noted that the assessee was found to be part of a group of companies linked with Shri Sharad Darak, who had admitted to providing

Zyka Merchandise Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT Central Circle -2, Bhopal

ITA 561/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Jayganga Exim India Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Bhopal

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

principles of natural justice was not sufficient unless supported by cogent material. The learned CIT(A) further examined the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment and noted that the assessee was found to be part of a group of companies linked with Shri Sharad Darak, who ITA No. 580/Ind/2025

Swapnal Subhash Anbhavane, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 7191/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 148Section 148ASection 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

Tribunal has powers to admit additional grounds of appeal.” 4.1. The Ld.AR submitted that, the above issue raised challenging the validity of reopening of assessment goes to the root of the cause and does not require any new facts to be considered to adjudicate. He placed reliance on the decisions ... Accordingly, the additional grounds raised by the assessee are admitted for adjudication. 6. On merits, the Ld.AR submitted that, on similar situation, Ld.AO reopened the assessment of assessee’s husband vide notice dated 30/05/2022 show-causing assessee’s husband to provide details as to why notice u/s148

Shree Vagad Visha Oswal Chovisi Mahajan Charitable Trust, Malad East vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemp)-II(2) Mumbai, Cumballa Hills

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5854/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishshree Vagad Visha Oswal Chovisi Assistant Director Of Income Tax-Ii(2), Mahajan Charitable, Mumbai 103, 1St Floor, Shree Parimal, Daftary Road, Malad East, Vs. Mumbai - 400097

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Chheda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 147Section 147(3)Section 148

NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. In Ground Nos. 1 and 2, the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment under Section (u/s.) 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). Whereas, the rest of the grounds are on merits ... Saving Bank Account with Cosmos Cooperative Bank Ltd., Malad Branch, which has not been offered to tax, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Ultimately, assessment was completed u/s. 147(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 28.03.2013, determining the total income

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Power Gujarat Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4353/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 254

appeal the assessee has filed its CO by raising following grounds of appeal:- “1. The CIT(A) ought to have held that the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act is illegal and bad in law. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have held that the specific objections raised

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Power Gujarat Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4352/MUM/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 254

appeal the assessee has filed its CO by raising following grounds of appeal:- “1. The CIT(A) ought to have held that the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act is illegal and bad in law. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have held that the specific objections raised

Radhakishan, Khategaon, Dewas vs. ITO-2, Dewas

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 678/IND/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2010-11
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246A

substantiating her claims, especially in light of the personal hardship and the genuine inability to present evidence at the relevant time. 3.That the reopening of assessment under section 148 was bad in law and devoid of fresh tangible material; the additions made are arbitrary, excessive, and lack proper justification. 4.That

Annie Hemendrakumar Khatri, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2315/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

argue her case. The assessee also raised the additional Ground of Appeal, which goes to root of the matter of validity of reopening of assessment. Thus Ld. Counsel pleaded one more opportunity be given to the assessee. 7. Ld. S.R. D.R. appearing for the Revenue submitted considering the peculiarity ... record), also would look to raise the I.T.A No. 2315/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 5 Annie Hemendrakumar Khatri vs. ITO jurisdiction of reopening of assessment. Therefore in the interest of Principle of Natural Justice, we deem it fit to set-aside the exparte appellate order passed

Viral Malaybhai Bhow, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2024/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 250

appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the matter on merits. Ld. Counsel pleaded that though the assessee raised legal ground on the reopening of assessment as well as on merits of the case, the assessee be given one more opportunity of hearing before ... hereby set-aside with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal including jurisdiction of reopening of assessment raised by the assessee by giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say the assessee should make use of this final opportunity

Kanubhai Maganbhai Patel, Anand vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1404/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

lower authorities is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act. 3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition

Mohd Shoaib Ur Rahman, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1561/HYD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69A

assessee has raised the additional grounds of appeal, which reads as under: “6) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the Reopening of Assessment under section 147 is time barred as per the provisions of section 149. 7) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have concluded that the initiation

Sudheer Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 23(3)(7), Mumbai

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

ITA 5263/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan & Mr. RaviFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

exemption under section 10(38) on long-term capital gains (LTCG). The return was processed under section 143(1). 3. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment based on information received from the Investigation Wing alleging that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries through trading in shares ... Appeals) has erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings holding that no objections were raised before him by the appellant against Sudheer Chirania :- 3 -: reopening of assessment specially when the objections raised against the reopening by the appellant before the Assessing Officer have been quoted verbatim in his order and which

Anil Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-26, Jhandewalan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 4. Before us, with respect to Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 6 taken challenging the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that AO has recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and no independent application ... Jain vs. DCIT Anil Kr. Jain vs. DCIT Anil Kr. Jain vs. DCIT 7. From the perusal of Performa for granting approval of reopening the assessment, it is observed that there was no mention in Column No. 9 regarding assessment completed passed u/s 143(3) of the Act prior

Balu Vithal Pawale, Pune vs. ITO WD- 2(4), Pune

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

ITA 2869/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2869/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Balu Vithal Pawale, V Assessing Officer, Village-Kasarsai, S National Faceless Taluka-Mulsi, Assessment Centre, Dist-Pune – 410506. Delhi Pan:Bfcpp7170L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 16.10.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 27.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 144BSection 147rSection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

complete contravention of the general directions issued by this Court in matters, where a notice under section 148 of the Act, for reopening of assessment is issued by the revenue. To begin with, the Assessing Officer was duty bound to issue, alongwith the notice under section ... reasons which formed the basis for reopening of assessment, the satisfaction note and order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, who granted approval to issuance of the said notice alongwith the note of the Assessing Officer in support of his request for approval, the appraisal report from the DDIT

M/S. Jagmag Mercantiles Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 709/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

with the view of the Tribunal.” 2.6. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the above judicial forums, we are inclined to quash the reopening of assessment on the basis of unsigned notice issued u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee and also consequent assessment framed u/s 143/147 ... record, we find that in this case the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated 30.09.2015. The reopening of assessment was made u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice on 20.03.2020, which is apparently after a period of four years from

M/S. Jagmag Mercantiles Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 708/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

with the view of the Tribunal.” 2.6. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the above judicial forums, we are inclined to quash the reopening of assessment on the basis of unsigned notice issued u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee and also consequent assessment framed u/s 143/147 ... record, we find that in this case the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated 30.09.2015. The reopening of assessment was made u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice on 20.03.2020, which is apparently after a period of four years from