“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

Assam Valley Finance and Investment Pvt Ltd, Guwahati vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 1, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Assam Valley Finance & Dcit, Circle 1 Investment Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, House No.1, Niligiri Path, G.S Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Zoo Road, Guwahati-781024 Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabca6974B Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 68

that they did not have any dealings with the assessee. In other words, the assessee never executed any trades through that brokers. Therefore, reopening of assessment is bad in law. We note that the assessee has been engaged in trading and investment in shares as well as providing loans ... merit and has been recorded with complete non-application of mind and in a very casual manner. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment based on the said reasons cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we quash the reopening of assessment on the basis of such reasons recorded, where there

Belong Tracom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Dibrugahr

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 254/GTY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrimanomohan Das, Jm Belong Tracom Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) 3, Mullick Street, Kolkata- C.R. Building, Mancotta Road, Vs. 700007, West Bengal Dibrugarh-786008, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb0435D Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

simply extracted the information received from the investigation wing and has not recorded his own reasons to believe or objective satisfaction to reopen the assessment. In our view there is no satisfaction recorded by the ld. AO that the income has escaped assessment. Consequently, the reopening made ... appeal.” 2.3. Therefore, considering the facts of the above facts in the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are inclined to quash the reopening of assessment as well as the consequent assessment framed by the ld. AO. The ground no.1 is allowed. 3. The issues raised in ground nos.2

Kanaiyalal Hemendra Vyas, Dhoraji vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(1) Rajkot, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, these two appeals of the assessee (In ITA 306&

ITA 307/RJT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 306 & 307/Rjt/2023 (निर्धररणवध/ Assessment Year: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Kanaiyalal Hemendra Vyas Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd – Sudhrai Colony, Station Road, Nr. 2(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Race Railway Station, Dhoraji (Guj) - 360410 Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 स्यीलेख्सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akypv3966G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 69B

impugned orders dated 29.06.2023 before the Tribunal. 9. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the reopening of assessment is bad in law, the assessee is a trader of agricultural products, and maintained Books of account and Books are audited by CA, and Bank ... been examined by the AO and the AO also no examined the complete books of account of the assessee, we find that reopening of assessment was according to law, hence, assessee is not entitled to get relief on this technical ground. We are of the view that the assessee deserves

Kanaiyalal Hemendra Vyas, Dhoraji vs. Income Tax Office, Ward - 2(2)(1), Rajkot, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, these two appeals of the assessee (In ITA 306&

ITA 306/RJT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 69B

Ashish Tilakchandra Bhatt, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Anand

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

ITA 1503/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year : 2012-13 Ashish Tilakchandra Bhatt The Dcit, Opp: Kailash Bhumi Vs Cir. Gandhinagar Borsad Chokdi Road Anand 388 001, Gujarat. Pan : Akwpb2390L (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ld.Ar : Revenue By Shri Ravindra, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/12/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ld.AR

Section 250Section 48

grievously erred both in law and on facts in upholding legality of Reassessment Order when it was pointed out that for verification , no reopening of assessment could be initiated. The Id NFAC/CIT(A) failed to properly consider appellants submission in this regard. It be so held now and order confirming

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1126/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

appellant trust there is no issue/case of non genuine address. 9. Learned CIT [A] has erred in fact and in law in reopening the assessment u/s. 147 since there is no new/fresh tangible material other the one available before A.O. in original assessment and ergo the reopening is not validly ... inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 1st April 1989), once an assessment is validly reopened, the Assessing Officer is empowered to assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, even though such issue was not included in the reasons recorded for reopening

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 1125/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

appellant trust there is no issue/case of non genuine address. 9. Learned CIT [A] has erred in fact and in law in reopening the assessment u/s.147 since there is no new/fresh tangible material other the one available before A.O. in original assessment and ergo the reopening is not validly done ... inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 1st April 1989), once an assessment is validly reopened, the Assessing Officer is empowered to assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, even though such issue was not included in the reasons recorded for reopening

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1124/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 1123/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

appellant trust there is no issue/case of non genuine address. 9. Learned CIT [A] has erred in fact and in law in reopening the assessment u/s.147 since there is no new/fresh tangible material other the one available before A.O. in original assessment and ergo the reopening is not validly done ... inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 1st April 1989), once an assessment is validly reopened, the Assessing Officer is empowered to assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, even though such issue was not included in the reasons recorded for reopening

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 1122/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

appellant trust there is no issue/case of non genuine address. 9. Learned CIT [A] has erred in fact and in law in reopening the assessment u/s.147 since there is no new/fresh tangible material other the one available before A.O. in original assessment and ergo the reopening is not validly done ... inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 1st April 1989), once an assessment is validly reopened, the Assessing Officer is empowered to assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, even though such issue was not included in the reasons recorded for reopening

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1121/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

Essen Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 9(1) Essen Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 101/1/2/1, B.T. Road, Bonhoogly, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700090, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5871A Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 29.07.2025 For The Ay 2012-13. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Counsel Of The Assessee Pressed Ground No.4, Which Is In Respect Of Reopening Of Assessment Not Being In Accordance With Law & Therefore, The Entire Reassessment Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

time of hearing, the Counsel of the assessee pressed ground no.4, which is in respect of reopening of assessment not being in accordance with law and therefore, the entire reassessment is liable to be quashed. 2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income ... issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 27.03.2019. The copy of order sheet containing the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment is available at page no.1 of the Paper Book. The said notice has been issued after obtaining approval from PCIT, Kolkata-3, which is extracted below:- 02. Wherein

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2178/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

adjudication. A.Y. 2014-15 2. The issue raised in ground no.1 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) upholding the reopening of assessment, which was based upon borrowed satisfaction without examining the records and without application of mind and accordingly, the reopening of assessment ... Thereafter, the ld. AO on the basis of information received from DDIT, investigation, Wing Siliguri, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021. The assessee complied with the said notices by filing the return of income on 01.05.2021, by declaring

Blackstone Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2027/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151

no.6, which is extracted as under:- “6. For that the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the ld. AO when reopening of assessment itself was bad in law since approval accorded u/s 151 of the Act was not in accordance with law.” 2.1. The facts in brief ... lines. 2.6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also relied on the above decisions, we are inclined to quash the reopening of assessment made by the ld. AO. 2.7. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. A.Y. 2016-17 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee

M/S. Blackstone Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2026/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151

Sushil Mitruka, Darjeeling vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1631/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

Sushil Mitruka, Darjeeling vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals

ITA 1630/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

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

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

2178/KOL/2025 2. The issue raised in ground no.1 is against the order of Ld. CIT (A) upholding the reopening of assessment, which was based upon borrowed satisfaction without examining the records and without application of mind and accordingly, the reopening of assessment bas bad in law. 2. 1. The facts ... Thereafter, the Ld. AO on the basis of information received from DDIT, investigation, Wing Siliguri, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021. The assessee complied with the said notices by filing the return of income on 01.05.2021, by declaring

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1613/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

Thakarshi Maharaj, Anjar Kutch vs. ITO, Ward-2, Gandhidham

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 820/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 820/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Thakarshi Maharaj Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Chandrani, Anjar, Kutch-370 020 (Guj) Vs. Gandhidham, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector-8, Gandhidham – 370 201 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bllpm 3616 D (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee, may be deleted. 11. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that in assessee`s case, in the subsequent AY 2015-16, the reopening of assessment was made by the assessing officer on the same issue and on same facts, however, no addition was made in hands of the assessee ... reopening of assessment was dropped. Hence, no addition should be made in the AY 2012-13, also. 12. On the other hand, the Ld. Senior DR for the revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para

Indira Bai Jindal, Khargone vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 134/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: None (Written request)For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) raising multiple grounds. Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 pertained to the validity of reopening of assessment under section 148, alleging that the reopening was mechanical, that objections filed against reopening were wrongly rejected, that the return filed in response