“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

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

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 145/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

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

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 144/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: V.S. Mahajan

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

I G International Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 143/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: V.S. Mahajan

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

I G International Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 142/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: V.S. Mahajan

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

Parametric Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 84/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S.Parametric Trading A.C.I.T., Pvt.Ltd., Circle 4(1), 205, Sujata Chambers, 2Nd Indore. Floor, Abhichand Gandhi Vs. Marg,Off Katha Bazar Masjid (W), Mumbai (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Shailesh Parmar, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2023

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

notice, the assessee filed reply dt. 10.11.2018 and again requested the AO to kindly provide the assessee the copy of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The ld. Authorized Representative then referred to the letter dt 14.11.2018 placed at page no.104 of the paper book, issued by the ld.AO ... relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the AO has supplied the substance of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment vide letter dt. 14.11.18 and thereafter the AO has reaffirmed the supply of reasons vide letter dt 15.1.2018. He has also filed the copy

Narayan Devarajan Iyengar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax, Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 106/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/wFor Respondent: Shri Dilip K. Shah

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148

no.29/Mum./2023 3. At the outset, the learned Sr. Counsel, appearing for the assessee, wishes to not press ground no.1 challenging the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, ground no.1 raised in assessee‟s appeal is dismissed. 4. The issue arising in grounds no.2

S.G.V. Cotyarns P.Ltd, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 633/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 131

purchases of Rs. 10,52,140/-. 12. The ld. counsel for the assessee did not press the ground relating to reopening of assessment. The same is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. 13. In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 633/DEL/2019 is partly allowed. The order

Sujatha Sudhakar Shetty, Mumbai vs. ITO-6(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 635/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234D

under normal provisions declared by the Appellant in her return of income. The Appellant submits that the notice issued u/s 148 and reopening of assessment u/s 147 is bad in law, illegal, ultra- virus and contrary to the provision of the I.T. Act and shall be quashed

Girdhari Finlease Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-12(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 2770/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumargirdhari Finlease Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. Kapil Goel, Adv, Ward-12(4), F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg4842M Assessee By : Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

recorded and not merely few extract of the said reasons so that the assessee can prepare it itself effectively against proposed action of reopening of assessment initiated by the AO. On careful perusal of this order we noted that the Tribunal has relied on various judgments including judgment of jurisdictional

Dhanshree Infratech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1243/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdhanshree Infratech Vs. Ito-12(2)(1) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 303, Western Edge 1, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, W.E. Highway, Borivali M.K. Road, (E), Mumbai – 66 Mumbai - 20 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagca7306J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Girish Dave Respondent By : Shailja Rai Date Of Hearing 07.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-20, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y. 2008-09. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shailja Rai

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 68

that re-opening of assessment is sought to be done for examination of alleged excess share-premium received and therefore the reasons for reopening of assessment do not disclose any concrete material available with the Assessing Officer to form a prima facie belief that income has escaped assessment ... mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act and thus reopening of assessment was invalid.” The ld. Counsel submitted that additional grounds are the legal grounds challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessment and such

Ramkanya Bai, Indore vs. ITO5(3), Indore

In the result, ground no.2 of the concise ground or ground no

ITA 832/IND/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniramkanya Bai Ito-5(3) C/O Pavan Ved, Indore Advocate, Income Tax 203 Shops Road Vs. 10/5 New Palasia Indore

Section 148Section 55A

separate notice shall be issued as the date of hearing has been mentioned in this order. However, in respect of issue of reopening of assessment, the issue has already been decided by the Tribunal, therefore, this contention of the assessee is rejected.” 2. Thus, this appeal of the assessee

Globus Power Generation Ltd (Formely Known As Cumulative Investments & Trading Co. Pvt Ltd), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-6(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6438/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshglobus Power Generation Ltd Vs. Acit, (Formerly Known As Cumulative Circle-6(2), Investments & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi A-60, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110028 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg6734E

For Appellant: Sh. Ritesh Bajaj, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

client code modification. In the case of M/s. Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra), the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court quashed reopening of assessment on identical issue. It has been held in the said judgment as under: “4. We note that the reasons in support of the impugned notice

Bhanwari Devi, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Alwar

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

ITA 76/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Agarwal( CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessment year 2007-08. (O.P. Poonia) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rewari" The Tribunal concluded that the basic requirement for reopening of assessment that the AO must apply his mind to the materials in order to have reasons to believe that the income of the assessee escaped assessment was found ... missing when the AO proceed to reopen the assessment which is in nature of a post mortem exercise after the event of reopening of the assessment. Therefore the reopening of the assessment was found to be invalid as it does not satisfy the requirement of law that prior

Amrit Brakewell Products Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -2(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4080/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargm/S. Amritbrakewell Products Vs. Ito, Pvt Ltd, Ward-2(3), A-202, Vikas Tower, Sonia New Delhi Pvr Complex, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacca3317P

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

erred both on facts and in law in making reassessment under Section 147 of the Act as the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment does not meet the requirements of Section 147 of the Act. M/s. AmritBrakewell Products Pvt Ltd 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... information received from Investigation Wing without any exercise it has own level and only on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, he initiated the reopening of assessment u/s 147 and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, which are invalid being bad in law and liable to be quashed. M/s. AmritBrakewell

Sai Prerna Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 216/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sai Prerana Co-Op Society Ltd., Ito-7(3)(2), 317, Puran Aasha Bldg. Gr. Fl. Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Narashi Natha Street, Katha Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Bazar Musjid Bunder (W), 43 Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400 009. Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ruby Srivastava & Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Ms. Ruby Srivastava &For Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR

Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80P

operative bank. The Assessing Officer has reopened the operative bank. The Assessing Officer has reopened the operative bank. The Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment based on the same material which was available assessment based on the same material which was available assessment based on the same material which ... opinion as was rightly urged by Mr. Mistry and, change of opinion as was rightly urged by Mr. Mistry and, therefore, impermissible for reopening the assessment. Apart therefore, impermissible for reopening the assessment. Apart therefore, impermissible for reopening the assessment. Apart from this, the assessment is sought to be reopened

Kshama Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-55(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8895/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

bank account. 2 ITA No.8895/Del./2019 3. Of course, the assessee has raised various other grounds including additional grounds challenging the validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 4. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee did not file any return of income under Section ... that in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under dispute, assessee had deposited cash in her bank account, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. In response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed her return

ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Delhi vs. Yamuna Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5212/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in holding that the AO has formed his belief for recording the reasons and reopening the assessment proceedings on the basis of wrong premises. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred ... invalid. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in holding that the reopening of assessment proceedings and subsequent assessment proceedings are bad in law and without jurisdiction thereby quashing the reassessment proceedings. 4. On the facts and circumstances

Polta vs. Ky- Tps Power Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5081/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 r.w. Section 148 of the Act and claimed that notice was issued for reopening the assessment without meeting the prerequisites of Section 147 to Section 151 of the Act. The assessee also challenged the merits of the additions ... 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 2009-10 in question and having regard to stance taken on behalf of the assessee, it emerges that the solitary cause

Shri Sham Sunder Aggarwal, Kapurthala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 17/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 263o

assessee of being heard.” 2.2 The ld. AR fully relied that the same issue was agitated by the revenue during the reopening of assessment u/s 148 and relevant approval was received u/s 151 of the Act. During hearing before he ld. PCIT, the ld. AR submitted the following details which

M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 3(20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1771/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 132Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)

assessee in respect of addition relating to bogus 2 Viraj Profiles Limited purchases. The assessee has also raised a legal ground challenging the reopening of assessment of AY 2011-12. 3. The facts relating to the case are discussed in brief. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture ... year, viz., AY 2011-12 falls beyond the period of six years mentioned in 153A(1) of the Act. However, the AO can reopen the assessment of any year beyond the period of six years u/s 153A of the Act by invoking the fourth proviso to sec. 153A