← 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

Dy CIT CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1278/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Central Circle-2(3), Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Prathishtha 401, Deepak Bldg. 3Rd Floor, S.V. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Vs. Road, Vile Parle-W, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aahps 5253 J Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 12/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 1278/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Dcit Central Circle-2(3), 401, Deepak Bldg. 3Rd Floor, S.V. Road, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Vile Parle-W, Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400056. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps 5253 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajan Vora, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/06/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271DSection 69A

transaction with P.D. Construction. On receipt of this information, the Assessing Vipul Dilipbhai Shah 4 ITA Nos. 1277 & 1278/M/2021 & CO No. 12/M/2022 Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by way of issuing notice u/s 148 on 28.03.2018. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s ... assessee filed his objections to the reasons provided by the A vide letter dated 04.07.2018. The assessee filed his objections against the reopening of assessment vide letter dated 06.07.2018. The same were disposed off by the AO vide order dated 27.10.2018 and subsequently he took up the assessment proceedings

Dy CIT CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1277/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Central Circle-2(3), Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Prathishtha 401, Deepak Bldg. 3Rd Floor, S.V. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Vs. Road, Vile Parle-W, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aahps 5253 J Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 12/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 1278/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Dcit Central Circle-2(3), 401, Deepak Bldg. 3Rd Floor, S.V. Road, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Vile Parle-W, Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400056. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps 5253 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajan Vora, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/06/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271DSection 69A

transaction with P.D. Construction. On receipt of this information, the Assessing Vipul Dilipbhai Shah 4 ITA Nos. 1277 & 1278/M/2021 & CO No. 12/M/2022 Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by way of issuing notice u/s 148 on 28.03.2018. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s ... assessee filed his objections to the reasons provided by the A vide letter dated 04.07.2018. The assessee filed his objections against the reopening of assessment vide letter dated 06.07.2018. The same were disposed off by the AO vide order dated 27.10.2018 and subsequently he took up the assessment proceedings

Goldiam Jewellery Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT (Central)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 729/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT–DR
Section 10ASection 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 253(1)(c)Section 263Section 263(1)

escaped assessment in your case for AY 2010 – 11. Accordingly, the AO was convinced and satisfying that this was a fit case for reopening of assessment proceedings.” 7. During the reassessment proceedings, in response to the notices issued under section 143 (2) of the Act, assessee filed documents vide letters

Goldiam Jewellery Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 728/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT–DR
Section 10ASection 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 253(1)(c)Section 263Section 263(1)

escaped assessment in your case for AY 2010 – 11. Accordingly, the AO was convinced and satisfying that this was a fit case for reopening of assessment proceedings.” 7. During the reassessment proceedings, in response to the notices issued under section 143 (2) of the Act, assessee filed documents vide letters

ITO 13 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Samriddhi Finvest Advisory Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7789/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhito-13(2)(1) Vs. M/S Samriddhi Finvest Room No. 147, 1 St Floor, Advisory Services Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, May Road, Mumbai – 400020 Building, 297/299/301, Princess Sreet, Near Marine Lines Flyover, Mumbai - 400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccd9469K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: k. Shivaram Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: B.K. Bagchi
Section 106Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143Section 148Section 292CSection 69

liable to be quashed. 2. Without prejudice to above, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing the notice under section 148 for reopening of assessment on Divyam Financial Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. (Old name) instead of Samriddhi Finvest Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., further notice was issued on wrong address ... discussed above in this order. Therefore, we allow this ground of cross objection of the assessee that in absence of service of notice, reopening of assessment was invalid. 11. Ground No. 3 of the cross objection has already been discussed while adjudicating the appeal of the Revenue at Para

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore vs. Mr. M R Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 256/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2007-08
For Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153A

fresh notice u/s. 148 is issued after the approval of CIT-3, Bangalore. The Ld.AR submitted that, such issue of two notices of reopening of assessment is bad in law, and that, the Act nowhere Page 7 of 26 provides for two simultaneous reassessment proceedings for the same year ... primary submission of the Ld.AR is that the Ld.AO wrongly initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act as against 153C since the Ld.AO reopened the assessment based on materials seized during a search. Before we proceed with the analysing applicability of section 148 vis-à-vis 153C it is necessary

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

chargeable to tax and thus there was a loss of revenue and income to that extent has escaped assessment. 31. Therefore, the AO. reopened the assessment u/s 147 by issue of a notice u/s 148 dated 2/7/2012 in response to which the assessee vide its ITA Nos.1563, 1601/Bang/2014, Page ... income, after the conclusion of Assessment proceedings, is a prerequisite for initiation of action under section 147 of the Act. Since the reopening of assessment was based on facts already on record of the AO, he held that initiation of reassessment proceedings was invalid. Although, the reopening of assessment

Jupiter Capital P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1601/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

chargeable to tax and thus there was a loss of revenue and income to that extent has escaped assessment. 31. Therefore, the AO. reopened the assessment u/s 147 by issue of a notice u/s 148 dated 2/7/2012 in response to which the assessee vide its ITA Nos.1563, 1601/Bang/2014, Page ... income, after the conclusion of Assessment proceedings, is a prerequisite for initiation of action under section 147 of the Act. Since the reopening of assessment was based on facts already on record of the AO, he held that initiation of reassessment proceedings was invalid. Although, the reopening of assessment

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1563/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

chargeable to tax and thus there was a loss of revenue and income to that extent has escaped assessment. 31. Therefore, the AO. reopened the assessment u/s 147 by issue of a notice u/s 148 dated 2/7/2012 in response to which the assessee vide its ITA Nos.1563, 1601/Bang/2014, Page ... income, after the conclusion of Assessment proceedings, is a prerequisite for initiation of action under section 147 of the Act. Since the reopening of assessment was based on facts already on record of the AO, he held that initiation of reassessment proceedings was invalid. Although, the reopening of assessment

Advance Technoloies Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1943/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 151Section 153

whose statement, the case is being sought to be re-opened, is not allowed to be cross examined by the assessee, the reopening of assessment cannot be lawfully done by the Assessing Officer. It was also claimed that non-furnishing of reasons for reopening of assessment within a reasonable time ... disposal of objections to reopening the assessment within a reasonable time was fatal to the reassessment proceedings. It was also claimed that the reassessment was being done on the basis of borrowed satisfaction-something which is legally impermissible. The assessee also raises several procedural issues. None of these submissions, however

M/S. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 14(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2406/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147

quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act on basis of details / evidences received from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 3 M/s. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai ("DRI") without providing ... same to the Appellant and without providing an opportunity for cross examination of the said information / party. The Appellant submits that the reopening of assessment on the basis of details / evidences received from the DRI without providing the same to the Appellant and without providing an opportunity for cross examination

M/S. Adesh Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle- 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5924/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(1)Section 147

lead case. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of The Income Tax Act 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition ‘of Rs.6,59,919/- on account

M/S. Adesh Export, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Central Circle-19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5923/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(1)Section 147

lead case. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of The Income Tax Act 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition ‘of Rs.6,59,919/- on account

M/S. Adesh Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Central Circle-19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5922/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(1)Section 147

lead case. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of The Income Tax Act 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition ‘of Rs.6,59,919/- on account

M/S. Adesh Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle-19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5921/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(1)Section 147

lead case. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of The Income Tax Act 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition ‘of Rs.6,59,919/- on account

M/S Stemade Biotech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 11 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 7823/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 37

taxmann.com 359 (Cal)], His Lordship of Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court, dealing specifically with the referral fee- though in the context of reopening of assessment, has observed that “Considering the submission of the parties, aims and object of the amended Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations

ACIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 7357/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 73

assessee [GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. vs. ACIT: 371 ITR 225 (Bom)]. We have perused the order of rejection of objection to reopening of assessment, dated 27.02.2013 and note that the arguments advanced by the Ld. Departmental Representative do not find place in the same. In the case of Hindustan Lever ... taken place within a period of four years of the end of the relevant assessment year. The power of the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment within a period of four years of the relevant assessment year is undoubtedly wider than where a period of four years has elapsed. Once

Sri. H.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 601/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

order under section 143(3) has examined all and passed the assessment order. Hence, the present Assessing officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and the notice issued u/s. 148 to the assessee is invalid and void-ab-intio. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case ... learned Assessing officer did not had any reason to believe that the income of the appellant has escaped assessment and hence the reopening of assessment for the impugned assessment year 2005-06 is bad in law. 21. The arguments advanced as above are devoid of any merit because, the seized

Sri. M.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 600/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

order under section 143(3) has examined all and passed the assessment order. Hence, the present Assessing officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and the notice issued u/s. 148 to the assessee is invalid and void-ab-intio. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case ... learned Assessing officer did not had any reason to believe that the income of the appellant has escaped assessment and hence the reopening of assessment for the impugned assessment year 2005-06 is bad in law. 21. The arguments advanced as above are devoid of any merit because, the seized

M/S Pravin Basantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(5)`, Mumbai

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

ITA 3673/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2011-12
Section 147Section 151Section 68

Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The grounds urged by the assessee give rise to following issues :- a) Validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the I.T. Act b) Non-compliance of mandatory requirement under section 151 of the I.T. Act c) Cash credit addition ... Assessing Officer took the view that financial transactions entered between the assessee and FMTPL has resulted in escapement of income. Accordingly, he reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed reassessment by making addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- under section