← 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

Prestigious Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -18, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1050/DEL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

jurisprudence. 3. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -27, New Delhi has erred in confirming the action with regard to reopening of Assessment u/s 147/148 and as such, proceeding u/s 147/148 is bad in law. 4. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A)- 27, New Delhi

Prestigious Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Centre Circle - 18, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1046/DEL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

jurisprudence. 3. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -27, New Delhi has erred in confirming the action with regard to reopening of Assessment u/s 147/148 and as such, proceeding u/s 147/148 is bad in law. 4. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A)- 27, New Delhi

Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Mansa vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bathinda

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 695/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148aSection 250Section 282Section 40A(3)Section 68

treated as nullity-Held, yes iv. CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom) Where reasons recorded for reopening of assessment, though repeatedly asked by assessee, were furnished only after completion of assessment, reassessment order could not be upheld. 5. Ujagar Holdings (P.) Ltd. vs. Income

Nayna Mukeshkumar Kotecha, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statical purpose

ITA 187/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

assessee is an NRI. The Ld. DR of the revenue also agreed to it. That the assessee raised the jurisdiction issue of reopening of assessment by the department by stating. i. The show cause notice u/s 148A refers to ‘receipt of remittance by a non-resident’ – i.e. the appellant. Words ... notice of AO about the residential status of the assessee. We are of the view that the ground taken by the assessee for reopening of assessment by non-jurisdiction of officer is not acceptable. The other ground taken by the assessee about the addition

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli vs. Srinivasagam Selvamathan, Tuticorin

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2654/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. SrinivasagamFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

itself was without jurisdiction. In other words, he submitted that at the first place, the AO didn’t had the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘), by issuing notice u/s 148 on 25.07.2022. Explaining further on the legal ... Tirunelveli, had issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 25.07.2022 [a copy of which has been placed before us], and pursuant to it, reopened the assessment for AY 2013-14 u/s.147 of the Act and thereafter, the Assessment Unit Income Tax Department passed the re/assessment order on 27.05.2023 making addition

Vikas Motiram Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(5), Mumbai

ITA 4741/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 148Section 250Section 69A

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

M/S. Bms Sales Pvt. Ltd., Purulia vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

applicable in the case of search pertaining to search prior to 1.4.2021. In our opinion, the AO is under obligation to reopen such assessment years prior to the date of search even if there is no incriminating material and then frame the assessment accordingly. In other words the existence ... also note that the Page |19 ITA No.1199/KOL/2025 M/s BMS Sales Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2019-20 main reason for reopening of assessment in that year was examination of share capital raised/ investments by the assessee as apparent from the records before us. We note that the said shareswere held

Subramanian Sudhakar Thiagarajan, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(3), Madurai

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

ITA 2649/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Tarun, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

According to the Ld.AR, the penalty was pursuant to assessment order passed on 19.03.2022, wherein the AO after reopening of assessment made an addition of ₹1,73,60,640/- towards unexplained cash deposits. In this context, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that the assessee had filed WP (Registration ... 24827/2022) on 31.10.2022 before the Hon’ble Madras High Court [against the action of the AO reopening the assessment, and then, framing the assessment order dated 19.03.2022], which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. According to the assessee, the assessment order dated 19.03.2022, was the foundation

DCIT, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 4047/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

fortified by the order of the Hon’ble ITSC. Therefore, such affidavit clearly comes under the purview of ‘tangible material’ so as to reopen the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 4.7 Without prejudice to the above, it was contended that the case of assessee pertains ... subsequent appeal, the ld.CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the same contentions as made before the AO. It was submitted that the reopening of assessment carried out was merely on account of change of opinion. No reopening of the assessment could be made merely on change of opinion by reviewing

DCIT, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 4046/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

fortified by the order of the Hon’ble ITSC. Therefore, such affidavit clearly comes under the purview of ‘tangible material’ so as to reopen the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 4.7 Without prejudice to the above, it was contended that the case of assessee pertains ... subsequent appeal, the ld.CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the same contentions as made before the AO. It was submitted that the reopening of assessment carried out was merely on account of change of opinion. No reopening of the assessment could be made merely on change of opinion by reviewing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Bijwasan Realty One Private Limited, Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 7131/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7131/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, R.No 317, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Jhandewalan Extn. Delhi 110055 बिाम Vs. Bijwasan Realty One P. Ltd., 85A, Rishy Amook, Panchkuian Road, New Delhi 110001 ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aafcr-3144-L अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Abhishek Jain, Chartered Accountant & Ms. Sunidhi Sharma, Advocate सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 16.07.2025, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 7 Days. The Revenue Has Filed An Application Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Application Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Considering The 2 Explanation Furnished By The Department, Delay Of 7 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Taken Up For Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Jain, Chartered Accountant &
Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 69C

addition on merits. The CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and the evidences available on record, upheld validity of reopening of assessment, on merits, the CIT(A) deleted 3 the addition of Rs.25,97,503/- made under section 69C of the Act holding that the assessee

Amit Yadav, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7002/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Avan Kumar Singh, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 148Section 148A

Bhutani Infra Group & Association for the purchase of unit in Grandthum Project. The ld. AR of the assessee assailing validity of reopening of assessment submitted that the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) directly without issuing any notice u/s.148A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1563/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

deemed to be notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act as per the amended provisions (new regime) relating to the reopening of assessment which has come into operation w.e.f. 01/04/2021. That, thereafter, as per directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ashish Agrawal (supra)”, the notice ... respectively reopened. Further, I have also gone through the record and find that the AO has followed due procedure while reopening the assessment proceedings. It is further observed that in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee had filed return of income on 11.10.2022 declaring total income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1562/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

deemed to be notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act as per the amended provisions (new regime) relating to the reopening of assessment which has come into operation w.e.f. 01/04/2021. That, thereafter, as per directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ashish Agrawal (supra)”, the notice ... respectively reopened. Further, I have also gone through the record and find that the AO has followed due procedure while reopening the assessment proceedings. It is further observed that in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee had filed return of income on 11.10.2022 declaring total income

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1451/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

deemed to be notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act as per the amended provisions (new regime) relating to the reopening of assessment which has come into operation w.e.f. 01/04/2021. That, thereafter, as per directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ashish Agrawal (supra)”, the notice ... respectively reopened. Further, I have also gone through the record and find that the AO has followed due procedure while reopening the assessment proceedings. It is further observed that in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee had filed return of income on 11.10.2022 declaring total income

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1450/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

deemed to be notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act as per the amended provisions (new regime) relating to the reopening of assessment which has come into operation w.e.f. 01/04/2021. That, thereafter, as per directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ashish Agrawal (supra)”, the notice ... respectively reopened. Further, I have also gone through the record and find that the AO has followed due procedure while reopening the assessment proceedings. It is further observed that in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee had filed return of income on 11.10.2022 declaring total income

Harshit Indravadanbhai Talati, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 1301/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1301/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Harshit Indravadan Acit Talati Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara Vs. 1, Kotyark Society, B/H. Zaver Nagar Bus Stop, Waghodia Road, Baroda, Gujarat - 390019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abipt6038Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S N Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 01/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S N Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

been taken in this appeal: “1. The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. The reopening of assessment u/s 148 is bad in law as same has been done for verification purpose only for making fishing and roving inquiries. 3. Ld. NFAC ... letter dated 30.07.2018 which is reproduced below: “2. Vide your letter dated. 26.04.2018, a request has been made to furnish the reasons for reopening of assessment for A.Y. 2011- 12. In accordance with your request, the reason for reopening of assessment, in your case

Maithan Ceramic Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

ITA 1944/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri P.K.Himmatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 269S

opening of the case u/s 148 dated 23-03-2018 through banking channel, disclosed in Tax Audit Report (Page -54). (2) Reopening of Assessment under Section 148 – A.Y. 2011-12 Subsequently, the Ld. Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated ... Assessment Year 2011-12, based on information received from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-1(3), Kolkata. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are summarized below: (Page-81 to 89) "One Suspicious Transaction Report was received from FIU-IND, New Delhi regarding suspicious transaction made

Esi Hospital Employees Co-Op Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3030/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G Reddi Prakash, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 80P

since it has been issued contrary to law and is against the ‘Rule of Law’; which impugned action of the JAO vitiates the reopening of assessment for AY 2018-19 by issuance of impugned notice dated 31.03.2022 u/s.148 of the Act and is therefore held to be illegal

Chintan Harshad Kanakia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

ITA 2822/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhsmt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Chintan Harshad Kanakia, Ito Ward 42 (1)(1) Room No. 103, Sacovar Apt., Sagar Complex, 703, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Saibaba Nagar, Borivali (W), Bkc, Mumbai -400051 Mumbai Pan – Agnpk6023E

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

discrepancies in the date of purchase of share. Thus, admittedly, no addition is made on the basis which was the basis of reopening of assessment. We find that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Jet Airways (supra) held that the Bombay High Court held that when no addition