“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

Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1472/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

reasons provided by the AO. 8. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative („learned DR‟) submitted that assessee has raised no objections against reopening of assessment at any stage of reassessment proceedings. Learned DR further submitted that from the perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, allegation ... under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. While initiating the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer recorded following reasons for reopening the assessment: “The ROI for A.Y.2005-06 was filed on 30-10-2005. In this case, an order u/s.143(3) of the Act 1961 was passed

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6671/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

Jas Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result we do not have any other option but to quash the reassessment proceedings

ITA 5850/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kavitha Rajgopal, Jm Ito 9(2)(1) Jas Trading P. Ltd 6D/603, Prem Nagar, S.V. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Rd Vs. Rd, Borivali (W) Mumbai- 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ito 9(2)(1) Jas Trading P. Ltd Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Rd 6D/603, Prem Nagar, S.V. Vs. Rd, Borivali (W) Mumbai- 400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj9837H Assessee By : Shri. Rahul Hakani. Revenue By : Shri. Achal Sharma (Cit Dr), Ms. Vranda U. Matkari Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma (CIT DR)

Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148Section 40A

assessee was dismissed. 08. However at the time of hearing, Assessee filed revised grounds of appeal where the challenge is made to reopening of assessment in both the cases. 09. After hearing the parties, we find that challenge is on the jurisdictional issue , goes to the route of the matter

Jas Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result we do not have any other option but to quash the reassessment proceedings

ITA 3603/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma (CIT DR)

Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148Section 40A

Devaraj Construction, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Madurai

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

ITA 1061/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1061/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Devaraj Construction, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Karisalpatti, Karumatthur Post, Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, Madurai. Tamil Nadu 625 514. [Pan:Aadfd1225F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T.M. Sugunthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2 (I/C), Madurai Dated 28.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Was Time Barred By 407 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal, Wherein, The Assessee Has Stated As Under:

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T.M. Sugunthamala, Addl. CIT

pressurising for payment of demand, the managing partner consulted tax practitioners and they advised to file appeal before the Honourable Tribunal as the reopening of assessment after a period of four years is prima facie incorrect as there was no failure to disclose the material facts fully and truly

Sangeetkumar Sawarmal Hisaria, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 785/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

section 153A of the Act. The assessment of A.Y. 2018-19 was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. The AO also reopened the assessment of A.Y. 2011-12 by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The AO completed the assessments ... shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12, wherein the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment. The learned AR submitted that the original assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 16.11.2013. The Assessing

Renudevi Hisaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1291/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: The Tribunal.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

were completed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment of AY 2012-13 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. In the reopened assessment ... determining the total income at the very same amount of Rs.2,28,320/-. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 29-03-2019. Accordingly, the impugned assessment came to be passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. In the original

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 951/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Anil. S. Sant, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

under: “Additional Ground No 1:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the action of the Ld. AO in reopening the assessment u/s 148 was bad-in-law as no taxable income has escaped assessment. Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Additional Ground No 2:- On the facts ... circumstances of the case, the action of the Ld AO in reopening the assessment u/s 148 was bad-in-law as the assessment sought to be reopened was completed u/s 153A. Additional Ground No 3:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed

M/S. Kwality Biscuits Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 675/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55(2)

Company Limited (supra), we admit the additional grounds. 9. We first consider the legal contentions raised by the assessee with regard to the reopening of assessment. During the year under year under consideration the assessee has sold the land for a consideration of Rs.9,50,00,000. In the return ... book profits is lower, the assessee had paid taxes under the normal provisions of the Act. 10. The AO reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 and the reason recorded for reopening the case is as under:- “1. The assessee company had filed its return of income declaring

Sunita Chaudhry, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimalchand PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

followed before assuming the jurisdiction u/s. 147, c. there was no tangible material before the Ld A.O for reopening the assessment and the assessment was re-opened on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and d. the Ld. A.O. had failed to appreciate that the SEBI had given a clean cheat ... appellant, therefore, the reasons for re-opening had failed. 2. Without prejudice to the objections to the reopening of assessment, impugned assessment order is illegal, invalid and void-ab-initio as the same was passed by the Ld. A.O. without giving the appellant proper opportunity of being heard

R.Rajagopal Tondaiman, Trichy vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Trichy

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

ITA 525/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.525/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri R. Rajagopal Tondaiman, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 4-D, New No. 22, Collector Income Tax, Office Road, Trichy 620 001. Central Circle 1, Trichy. [Pan:Afbpr0712E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 30.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is A Hereditary Of Raja Of Pudukottai & Stated That He Is Assessed To Tax In The Status Of Huf & Individual. The Property At Cenotaph Road, Chennai Was Given To M/S. Doshi Housing Ltd. On A Development Agreement Entered Into On 30.01.2006 Through A Power Of Attorney. The Assessing Officer Has 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

Officer. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the reopening of assessment is beyond four years, reasons are not based on any evidence or any tangible materials. It was further submission that the Assessing Officer ... condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change, of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power

Ayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-53, Mumbai

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

ITA 699/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

submitted that the AO has wrongly interpreted the same as gross receipts. Further to this Ld. AR submitted that the AO has reopened the assessment on mere suspicion and not on reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex ... match, thereby establishing the fact that income has escape assessment. The Ld. DR further stated the Ld. AO has reasonable material to reopen the assessment of assessee and that the mismatch of figure was sufficient reason for reopening the assessee’s case. As rejoinder the Ld. AR stated that

M/S Transcon Skycity Pvt Ltd. (Formerly Samta Builders Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4858/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)

deduction cannot be allowed and the A.O. has issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Further the assessee has obtained reasons for reopening of assessment and objections were filed and were disposed off by the A.O. Further notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued calling for various information

Mrs. Shakuntala J Daga, Dombivli vs. Income Tax Officer National Face Less Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1920/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and it relates to A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee, inter alia, has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the I.T. Act. 2. The learned AR submitted that the assessee had filed the return of income for the year under consideration ... declaring income of Rs.10,39,050/-. Subsequently the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of the year under consideration by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 26.3.2018. The learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on the basis of information given by the DDIT

Raj Real Estate & Finvest Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal CIT-5, Mumbai

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

ITA 538/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 538/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Pcit Mumbai-5, Raj Real Estate & Finvest Pvt. R. No. 515, 5Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 1807, Panchartna Building, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mama Parmanand Marg Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr3037J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya T Tushar Nagori, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 07.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya TFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 22Section 263Section 68

revised is passed and jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be exercise with reference to the issue which were not subject matter of reopening of assessment and the period of limitation provided u/s 263(2) would commence from the date of order and not from the date of order of reassessment

Shradha Estate Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1626/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrikuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalshradha Estate Pvt. Ltd., 3, New Bake Bihari Building, 24Th Road, Khar (West), Opp. Khar Tel Ex, Mumbai-40052. Pan: Aabcs4961J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-5(3)(2), Room No. 583, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)

utilise the same for framing assessment or where information pertains to an earlier year, then the AO may proceed to reopen the assessment u/s 148 subject to the conditions laid down u/s 147/148/149/151. 8. Following may be considered as characteristics/ingredients of actionable information- A) It should pertain to the assessee ... respect of whom reopening of assessment is contemplated. 7 ITA No. 1626/Mum/2021-Shradha Estate Pvt. Ltd. B) It should pertain to the assessment year in respect of which assessment is sought to be reopened. It should not pertain to an assessment year for which assessment cannot be reopened due to limitation

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1831/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

identical to the documents/evidences furnished before the Hon'ble Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra. This fact makes it abundantly clear that the reasons for reopening of assessments for AY 2008-09 to AY 2011-12 originate from the evidences furnished before the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra. After a long legal battle

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1830/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1829/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1828/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148