← 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

Ramniwas Choyal, Surat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 360/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 316, Pancharatna Pratishtha Bhavan Opera House, Mumbai -400004 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcm8875H (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mahavir M. Jain V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber M.K. Road, Churchgate Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Ahnpj4936G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ramniwas Choyal V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber Pratishtha Bhavan Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Aknpc1507H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

same was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Subsequently Assessing Officer after recording reasons for reopening of assessment (as 3 ITA NO. 329, 352 & 360/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/s. Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., & others mentioned in the Assessment Order in Para No.2) reopened ... assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 05.09.2018. Assessee objected to the reasons for reopening of assessment vide letter dated 02.10.2019 and the same were rejected by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 05.10.2019. Subsequently Assessing Officer issued notices

Mahavir M. Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 352/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 316, Pancharatna Pratishtha Bhavan Opera House, Mumbai -400004 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcm8875H (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mahavir M. Jain V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber M.K. Road, Churchgate Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Ahnpj4936G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ramniwas Choyal V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber Pratishtha Bhavan Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Aknpc1507H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

same was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Subsequently Assessing Officer after recording reasons for reopening of assessment (as 3 ITA NO. 329, 352 & 360/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/s. Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., & others mentioned in the Assessment Order in Para No.2) reopened ... assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 05.09.2018. Assessee objected to the reasons for reopening of assessment vide letter dated 02.10.2019 and the same were rejected by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 05.10.2019. Subsequently Assessing Officer issued notices

Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 329/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 316, Pancharatna Pratishtha Bhavan Opera House, Mumbai -400004 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcm8875H (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mahavir M. Jain V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber M.K. Road, Churchgate Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Ahnpj4936G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ramniwas Choyal V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber Pratishtha Bhavan Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Aknpc1507H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

same was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Subsequently Assessing Officer after recording reasons for reopening of assessment (as 3 ITA NO. 329, 352 & 360/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/s. Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., & others mentioned in the Assessment Order in Para No.2) reopened ... assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 05.09.2018. Assessee objected to the reasons for reopening of assessment vide letter dated 02.10.2019 and the same were rejected by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 05.10.2019. Subsequently Assessing Officer issued notices

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

ITA 1186/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Raj, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

Assessee preferred the appeal before learned CIT (A) challenging disallowances/additions on the merits as well as against reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Learned CIT (A) ITA nos. 1064 & 1186/Mum/2019 M/s Opel Paper Mills Ltd; A.Y. 09–10 upheld the reopening of assessment as valid, however, after ... order itself. Further, wrong facts are mentioned in the reasons recorded and merely, based on tax evasion petition, the learned Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment. Therefore, reasons to belief are based on borrowed satisfaction. ITA nos. 1064 & 1186/Mum/2019 M/s Opel Paper Mills Ltd; A.Y. 09–10 ii. The learned

M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

ITA 1064/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Raj, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

Assessee preferred the appeal before learned CIT (A) challenging disallowances/additions on the merits as well as against reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Learned CIT (A) ITA nos. 1064 & 1186/Mum/2019 M/s Opel Paper Mills Ltd; A.Y. 09–10 upheld the reopening of assessment as valid, however, after ... order itself. Further, wrong facts are mentioned in the reasons recorded and merely, based on tax evasion petition, the learned Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment. Therefore, reasons to belief are based on borrowed satisfaction. ITA nos. 1064 & 1186/Mum/2019 M/s Opel Paper Mills Ltd; A.Y. 09–10 ii. The learned