“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

Jaya Juneja, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Indore

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

ITA 813/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg, CA & Shri Aayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148A

section 124(3) of the Act, the ground was not maintainable. Accordingly, this ground was dismissed. Grounds Nos. 2 and 3, challenging the reopening of assessment and alleging non-compliance with the procedure under section 148A, were dismissed by holding that notice under section 148A(b) had in fact been

Kilaru Venkata Satish, Krishna Dist vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 933/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us), Which Reads As Under:

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

achieve the ultimate object of simplifying the tax administration, ease compliance and reduce litigation. 6.3 But prior to pre-Finance Act, 2021, while reopening an assessment, the procedure of giving the reasons for reopening and an opportunity to the assessee and the decision of the objectives were required ... with effect from 01.04.2023. In taxing statutes, intendment cannot be assumed unless specifically expressed in the provision enacted by the legislature. Therefore, the reopening of assessment without sanction/approval of the specified authority in accordance with Section 151 of the Act was bad in law. Consequently, reassessment order dated 16.01.2024 also

Laxmi Venkata Krishna Rice Corporation, Nalgonda vs. ITO, Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1700/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69A

Vama International, Mumbai vs. ACIT 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5456/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

regards validity of reassessment proceedings: 1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer ('AO') in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of learned AO in initiating reassessment ... escaped assessment. There was no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 3. The learned AO erred in reopening the assessment for the second time without having any fresh material based on which he had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. 4. The learned

Shivi Mukesh Kumar, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5293/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishshivi Mukesh Kumar Acit, Circle 22(1) D-1402, Hubtown Seasons, Mumbai Next To Fine Arts Society, Vs. Ramakrishna Chemburkar Marg, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 Pan/Gir No. Aqapk 9881 H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharan V. Gandhi – Advocate & Ms. Vinita A. Nara – Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.07.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. Though, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Specifically Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 6, Which Reads As Under: 6. The Sanction U/S. 151 Is Bad In Law & As A Result, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Bad In Law. 3. Referring To This Ground, Ld. Counsel Submitted, At The Very Outset, This Issue May Be Considered And, If Warranted The Other Issues Can Be Taken Up Thereafter. As Could Be Seen

For Appellant: Shri Dharan V. Gandhi – Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 35(1)(ii)

short) formed the belief that the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act is not admissible. Accordingly, he reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Ultimately, assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act vide order dated 25.05.2023, disallowing ... Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, inter alia, challenging the validity of the reopening of assessment. 3 Shivi Mukesh Kumar vs. ACIT However, vide an ex parte order, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal by sustaining the addition

Bansal Industries, Hansi vs. ITO Ward 1 Hissar, Hissar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 5404/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

assessee. The Ld. Counsel stated that during the A.Y.2015-16 the assessee had not received/obtained any accommodation entries. It is, therefore, submitted that reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act without making any enquiry and framing the assessment is bad in law. The Ld. Counsel stated that the assessee ... accommodation entries through various companies to various parties and assessee is one of them, the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act for reopening of assessment and accordingly assessment was framed making an addition of Rs.38,75,000/-, alleging that assessee had obtained accommodation entry. It is the submission

Bansal Industries, Hansi vs. ITO Ward 1 Hissar, Hissar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 5395/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Vijaykumar Ukabhai Patel, Mehsana vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 1, Mehsana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1712/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

escapment of income on part of Vijaykumar Ukabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2018-19 - 2– Appellant. It is therefore submitted that the whole reopening of assessment is bad in law and void ab initio and the order passed u/s 147 rws 144 of the Act be quashed

Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward- 3(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 532/AHD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee’s own statement recorded under section 131 of the Act admitting receipt of cash on sale of land, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 dated 27.03.2015 after obtaining approval from the competent authority. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued several notices under ... under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the assessment order, submissions of the assessee and material available on record, held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on fresh and tangible material received from the Investigation Wing, including the assessee’s own admission of receipt

Sumangal Jewels P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2357/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2025AY 2009-2010

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Considering the facts of the assessee’s case in the light of the afore- said decisions, we are inclined to hold that the reopening of assessment has been made invalidly on the basis of borrowed satisfaction as the ld. AO has failed to apply his mind independently to arrive ... objective conclusion as to how the income has escaped assessment. Therefore, the reopening of assessment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. We, there- fore, respectfully following the above decisions quash the reopening of the assessment. Ground No. 1 is allowed. 9. In result, appeal of the assessee

Ruchie Mittal, Delhi vs. DCIT CC-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2683/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2683/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Ruchie Mittal, Dcit Plot No.10-11, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Central Circle-1, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, Faridabad, Haryana. Delhi. Pan No.Addpg0409P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69Section 69A

there was a regime change with respect to law of limitation coming into effect from 1-4-2021, which curtailed time limit for reopening of assessment from 6 years to 3 years, revenue, with a view to avail limitation prescribed under un- amended section 149, generated reassessment notices under section

Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon vs. Anil Kumar, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO of the 7

ITA 4013/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshincome Tax Officer, Vs. Anil Kumar, Ward-1(1), J-10, South City-1, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampk9521G Co No. 88/Del/2024 (Ita No. 4013/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Anil Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, J-10, South City-1, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampk9521G

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

held: “... since said reason for reopening was based on same set of information which was available at time of original assessment proceedings, reopening of assessment based on a mere change of opinion was invalid and not permissible" [2022] 139 taxmann.com 562 (SC) ..." 7.6 Further the reliance is drawn upon

Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Farukhabad vs. Assessing Officer, Farrukhabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 76/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

unsecured loan added u/s 68 of the Act. 12. At the outset, we find that the reasons recorded by the ld AO for reopening the assessment are very very vague and does not contain any ITA Nos. 54 & 76/AGR/2025 Manoj Kumar Agarwal factual information thereon. The reasons does not even ... being recorded, the ld Addl. CIT had accorded approval u/s 151 of the Act in a mechanical manner. This is classic case of reopening of assessment being made for making fishing and roving enquiries which is impermissible in the eyes of law. Factually the ld AR submitted that

Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Farrukhabad vs. DCIT Circle-4(2)(1) Farrukhabad, Farrukhabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 54/AGR/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

Sri Krisha Traders, Sivagangai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2223/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2223/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. N. Vijay Kumar, C.A *+For Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)

have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the A.O reopened the assessment for the reasons that the assessee has made unexplained cash deposits, whereas while concluding the assessment he has made an addition ... assessment. 21. To my mind, a careful reading of Section 147 of the Act would show that it empowers an Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment, if, he has reason to believe, that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant year, ''and also bring

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur vs. Smt. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 182/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

179/CTK/2020 4. The first issue raised by the Revenue in ground nos. 1 to 4 is against the quashing of reopening of assessment u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act by the Id. CIT (A), thereby quashing the assessment framed by the Id. AO. 4.1. The facts ... held that the finding of justice MB Shah Commission report is not credible evidence which could be used to reopen the assessment. The Id. CIT (A) noted that the Id. AO has blatantly followed the Justice MB Shah Commission report and presumed that there was a illegal mining

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur vs. Smt. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 181/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cental Circle, Sambalpur vs. Smt. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 180/CTK/2020[209-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cental Circle, Sambalpur vs. Smt. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

Shri Pragjibhai Parsotambhai Tala, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-1 (1) (5), Rajkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 271/RJT/2023[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot11 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.271/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Pragjibhai Parsotambhai Tala Vs. The Income-Tax Office, Ward- Maruti, Nr. Sitaram Chhatralaya, 1- 1(1)(5), Rajkot Harinagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Racecourse Rajkot-360001 Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 Gujarat Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaopt1813C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09 / 12 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11 / 12 /2025

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

referred as to the "CIT(A)"] erred on facts as also in law in rejecting the ground of appeal related to validity of reopening of assessment. That on facts as also in law, proceedings-initiated u/s. 147 of the Act is invalid and assessment finalized on such invalid initiation