“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

M/S. Ravi Foundation, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

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

ITA 884/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Arati AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)

notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26-03-2018. The reason recorded for reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act, a copy of which is at page 40 of the paper book, would reveal that for assessing the escaped income ... Rs.2,00,50,000/- being the contribution received from certain members towards infrastructure facilities, the assessing officer had reopened the assessment. Ultimately, the assessing officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act assessing the alleged escaped income of Rs.2,00,50,000/-. Thus, neither

ACIT -19(3), Mumbai vs. Mrs. Ramona Pinto, Mumbai

ITA 64/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleacit – 19(3) V. Mrs. Ramona Pinto 2Nd Floor, Room No. 206 Flat No. 52, Ivorick, St. Cyrils Road Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Mumbai - 400050 Mumbai – 400 007 Pan: Agipp7514N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitish Joshi Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nitish JoshiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

dated 18.06.2014 were also issued and served on the assessee. The assessee had filed objections against the reopening of assessment which were disposed off vide order dated 21.08.2014. The assesse had filed a writ petition against this order dated 21.08.2014 which was treated as dismissed by the Hon'ble Bombay

Rekha Prakash Niichani, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1734/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

provided any evidence acknowledgement that he indeed asked for reason re-opening. If the assessee had made request to provide reasons to reopening of assessment and the AO had not considered the same, then it would have strengthened the assessee's case. But, the assessee had not furnished any evidence ... proving that the request was made to provide the reason for reopening of assessment. In view of the above the ground nos. 1,1.1 & 1.2 are dismissed. 9.0. Ground nos. 2, 2.1 & 3: The appellant stated that the bank accounts under consideration are jointly held with her husband. The first

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3823/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Dalmia group. The assessee also challenged the reopening u/s. 148 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the ground of appeal regarding the reopening of assessment and no further appeal has been preferred by the assessee there against. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the Ld.CIT

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3822/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3821/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3820/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Devkinandan Bagadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 249/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amar Jit Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare, Sr. A.R. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

enough. Then, the reasons to believe escapement of income need to spell out all the reasons and grounds available with the AO for reopening the assessment. The reasons must also paraphrase any investigation report, which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO thereon ... must be enclosed along with the reasons. The Hon'ble High Court has underlined that consideration of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment is not a mechanical ritual, but it is a quasi judicial function. It has been mandated that the order disposing of the objections should

M/S. Nitesh Estates Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1486/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

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

assessee has been summarised by the Ld.AO in para 3 as under: “3. The main objection of the AR is that the reopening of assessment is valid only when income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment comes to notice subsequently. In the instant case the AR further argues that ... additions made by the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the legal ground challenging the reopening of assessment raised by assessee. On merits, the Ld.CIT(A) observed and held as under: “7.3. The issue on merits relates to the AO's action of disallowing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Srinivasa Trust, Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1475/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Chandrashekar, A.R

Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148

First, we will take up ITA No.1469/Bang/2018 for the A.Y. 2006-07. The first ground in this appeal is with regard reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. The assessee is a registered charitable Trust, recognized and granted registration ... issued u/s 148 of the Act without proper jurisdiction and ought to be struck down as an illegal notice. Consequently, he held reopening of assessment as bad in law. Accordingly, he annulled the assessment. Against this, revenue is in appeal before us by raising the grounds that the reassessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Srinivasa Trust, Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1473/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Chandrashekar, A.R

Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Srinivasa Trust, Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1469/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Chandrashekar, A.R

Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148

Shri. Pravin Futarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 4540/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Shri Pravin Futarmal Jain The Income Tax Officer, Office No.6, Jewel Co-Op Society Ward 18(2)(5) Ltd. 3Rd Floor, 44/46, Dhanji Vs. Earnest House Ncpa Marg Street, Mumbai-400 003 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacpj5627L

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

Assessing Officer. The assessee aggrieved with that of the order has preferred the appeal before us. 04. The learned Authorized Representative challenged the reopening of assessment as well as the addition on account of bogus purchases. The argument of the assessee was that Shri Pravin Futarmal Jain

Merck Performance Materials Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1210/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1210/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Merck Performance Materials बिधम/ The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Chemtreat Composites India Tax – 15(2)(2), Mumbai, Pvt. Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Godrej One, Pirojsha Nagar, M.K. Road, Eastern Express Highway, Mumbai - 400020 Vikhroli (East), Mumbai- 400079 Pan : Aabcc5609B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) For The Appellant/Assessee: Arati Vissanji For The Respondent/Revenue: C.T. Mathews सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary: 1. By Way Of The Present Appeal The Appellant/Assessee Has Challenged The Order Dated, 02.12.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 24, Mumbai (Hereafter Referred To As „The Cit(A)‟] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter Referred To As „The Act‟), Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Had Dismissed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, Dated 29.12.2017, Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

done so on the basis of “Audit Objection” and further ITA. No. 1210/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 holding that the Ld. AO had reopened the assessment on the basis of the relevant material for formation of reasonable belief for escapement of income. 1.2 He was satisfied that there was tangible material ... escapement of income and therefore assessment was required to be upheld and further erred in holding that there was no illegality in reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. 1.3 The deduction u/s. 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not required to be granted without setting

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Lml Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4417/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2001-02

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra (CIT-DR) &

Section 14ASection 35ASection 37Section 40A(9)Section 4O

manufacturing and sundry equipment. 4. In A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 on the information received from Directorate of Enforcement, AO recorded reasons and reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act by way of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act by noticing that the AO during ... Similarly, in A.Y. 2006-07 the AO on the basis of information received from Directorate of Enforcement recorded the reasons and initiated the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act by way of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. The AO noticed that