← 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

M/S. Muse Advertising and Media Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 10(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2202/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of the appeal, the assessee has challenged the validity of the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 2 M/s Muse Advertising and Media Pvt. Ltd. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee had filed return of income ... approving authority having to sign the letter is missing in the above approval order. We therefore find that the action of reopening of assessment without obtaining valid sanction u/s 151 of the Act stood fundamentally flawed. 9. For the above reasons, we set aside the notice issued

ITO(It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

ITA 3674/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

Assessing Officer, and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed 3. erred in passing order under section 147 of the Act by reopening of assessment order without obtaining requisite approval as per amended Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, resulting into issue of notice ... assessee as issue under consideration pertains to obtaining approval u/s 151 of the Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, reopening of assessment is bad in law since approval of Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Tax) -3, Mumbai obtained is incorrect, as the same is not signed

Income Tax Officer (It)-3(2)(1), Kautilya Bhawan vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3523/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Divesh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

Assessing Officer, and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed 3. erred in passing order under section 147 of the Act by reopening of assessment order without obtaining requisite approval as per amended Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, resulting into issue of notice ... assessee as issue under consideration pertains to obtaining approval u/s 151 of the Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, reopening of assessment is bad in law since approval of Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Tax) -3, Mumbai obtained is incorrect, as the same is not signed

Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) 3(2)(1), Kautilya Bhawan Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

ITA 3440/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

Assessing Officer, and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 3. erred in passing order under section 147 of the Act by reopening of assessment order without obtaining requisite approval as per amended Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, resulting into issue of notice ... assessee as issue under consideration pertains to obtaining approval u/s 151 of the Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, reopening of assessment is bad in law since approval of Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Tax) -3, Mumbai obtained is incorrect, as the same is not signed

Mayurbhai Jaysukhlal Shah, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

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

ITA 319/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 319/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Mayurbhai Jaysukhlal Shah Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 601, Cross Way, P.N. Marg, Income Tax, Jamnagar Jamnagar, Gujarat-361001 Office Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax.Pcit, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afgps1754J (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 147Section 263Section 68

revenue argued that during the proceedings under section 263 of the Act, the assessee cannot raise the technical issue about reopening of assessment. 11. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished ... material to take a different view from the one taken by the Assessing Officer and the reasons given by him to reopen the assessment and sustain the revision are totally unacceptable. The respondent is not vested with any power under section 263 to initiate proceedings for revision in every case

Gmedapadu Pacs, East Godavari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kakinada

ITA 573/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.573/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Gmedapadu Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, East Godavari District, Ward-1, Andhra Pradesh. Kakinada. Pan: Aaaag8455A (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri Kss Sarma, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 18/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 10/02/2021 For Ay 2018-19. The Assessee Society Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Ao On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sri KSS Sarma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 80P

materials and documents filed during the course of assessment and proceeded to disallow the deduction in the computation sheet. There was no reopening of assessment, nor was there any requirement to follow the procedure prescribed in the GKN Driveshafts judgment, which is applicable only in cases of reassessment. Furthermore

Ashok Rudraraju, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 439/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 439/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ashok Rudraraju, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aqvpr4058L

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

invalid and void ab initio. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law the reopening of assessment for this year for the second time by issue of a notice under section 148 dated 29.07.2022 as per the ratio of the Honourable Supreme Court of India ... 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

Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/JPR/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

vide order dated 11.08.2025 subsequent to aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has held: Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - no appropriate prior approval/sanction mandated u/s 151 - order passed beyond three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year Grant of sanction by the appropriate ... vide order dated 14.05.2025 subsequent to aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has held: Reopening of assessment - Sanction for issue of notice u/s 151 - HELD THAT:- The question as to which would be the specified authority u/s 151 of the Act in respect of approval

Kineta Global Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 800/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

For Appellant: Sri S. VenkateswarluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250(6)

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

Sudhir Babu Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1352/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 69A

1348/Hyd/2025 (being the lead appeal) are re-produced as under: “1. The Ld. NFAC erred in sustaining the action of the AO in reopening of assessment for the asst. year 2013-14 which is beyond four years from the end of the relevant asst. year and on a borrowed satisfaction ... claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, for the assessment year under consideration and further, subsequent assessment years. The A.O. reopened the assessment on the basis of the information received from the Insight Portal of the Department which shows that, the assessee has sold the shares of Stampede Capital

Sudhir Babu Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1351/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 69A

1348/Hyd/2025 (being the lead appeal) are re-produced as under: “1. The Ld. NFAC erred in sustaining the action of the AO in reopening of assessment for the asst. year 2013-14 which is beyond four years from the end of the relevant asst. year and on a borrowed satisfaction ... claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, for the assessment year under consideration and further, subsequent assessment years. The A.O. reopened the assessment on the basis of the information received from the Insight Portal of the Department which shows that, the assessee has sold the shares of Stampede Capital

Sudhir Babu Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1349/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 69A

1348/Hyd/2025 (being the lead appeal) are re-produced as under: “1. The Ld. NFAC erred in sustaining the action of the AO in reopening of assessment for the asst. year 2013-14 which is beyond four years from the end of the relevant asst. year and on a borrowed satisfaction ... claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, for the assessment year under consideration and further, subsequent assessment years. The A.O. reopened the assessment on the basis of the information received from the Insight Portal of the Department which shows that, the assessee has sold the shares of Stampede Capital

Sudhir Babu Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1348/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 69A

1348/Hyd/2025 (being the lead appeal) are re-produced as under: “1. The Ld. NFAC erred in sustaining the action of the AO in reopening of assessment for the asst. year 2013-14 which is beyond four years from the end of the relevant asst. year and on a borrowed satisfaction ... claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, for the assessment year under consideration and further, subsequent assessment years. The A.O. reopened the assessment on the basis of the information received from the Insight Portal of the Department which shows that, the assessee has sold the shares of Stampede Capital

1.Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Kolkata vs. Anushreya Investment Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2543/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Anushreya Investment Private Kolkata Limited P-7, Chowringhee Square, 5Th Floor, Mangalam-A, 24 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Hemanta Basu Sarani, Vs. Poorva, Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca3658B Assessee By : Shri N.S. Saini, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Saini, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)Section 68

reasons recorded by the ld. AO are based on the factual wrong information, vogue, scanty, and unequivocal. The ld. AR submitted that reopening of assessment on the basis of such vogue and scanty reasons is not permissible under the Act. The ld. AR submitted that by exercising the reopening ... these details were available in the return of income filed by the assessee. The ld. AR therefore, submitted that the reopening of assessment itself is bad in law and deserves to be quashed including the assessment framed. 2.4. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench

Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle -4(1), Kolkata vs. Victor Tradelink Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2310/KOL/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 68

were found and that too in the premises of Sagar Group. We further find that in this case, the Assessing Officer had mistakenly reopened the assessment u/s.147 of the Act and the notice is clearly infructuous because section 153C is a special provision to deal with the case of ‘other ... reopening proceedings is different from the additions made by the AO in his assessment order. The reasons which were the basis for the reopening of assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were totally ignored. The AO has made additions on other issues which were not part of the reasons

M/S. N G Brothers, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 40, Kolkata

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

ITA 1881/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhumita Das, DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

delete the addition. The ground no. 4 is allowed. 8. Even on the legal issue, we note that the reopening of assessment made by the ld. AO based is upon the reasons recorded in A.Y. 2016- 17, which in our opinion, is not permissible under the Act. In order ... record his satisfaction and reasons to believe independently for each assessment year separately. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment based upon the reasons recorded in A.Y. 2016-17, is incorrect and cannot be sustained. Therefore, even on this issue, the reopening of assessment as well as assessment framed

M/S. N G Brothers, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 40, Kolkata

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

ITA 1880/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhumita Das, DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

delete the addition. The ground no. 4 is allowed. 8. Even on the legal issue, we note that the reopening of assessment made by the ld. AO based is upon the reasons recorded in A.Y. 2016- 17, which in our opinion, is not permissible under the Act. In order ... record his satisfaction and reasons to believe independently for each assessment year separately. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment based upon the reasons recorded in A.Y. 2016-17, is incorrect and cannot be sustained. Therefore, even on this issue, the reopening of assessment as well as assessment framed

M/S. N G Brothers, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 40, Kolkata

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

ITA 1879/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhumita Das, DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

delete the addition. The ground no. 4 is allowed. 8. Even on the legal issue, we note that the reopening of assessment made by the ld. AO based is upon the reasons recorded in A.Y. 2016- 17, which in our opinion, is not permissible under the Act. In order ... record his satisfaction and reasons to believe independently for each assessment year separately. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment based upon the reasons recorded in A.Y. 2016-17, is incorrect and cannot be sustained. Therefore, even on this issue, the reopening of assessment as well as assessment framed

M/S. N G Brothers, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 40, Kolkata

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

ITA 1878/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhumita Das, DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

delete the addition. The ground no. 4 is allowed. 8. Even on the legal issue, we note that the reopening of assessment made by the ld. AO based is upon the reasons recorded in A.Y. 2016- 17, which in our opinion, is not permissible under the Act. In order ... record his satisfaction and reasons to believe independently for each assessment year separately. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment based upon the reasons recorded in A.Y. 2016-17, is incorrect and cannot be sustained. Therefore, even on this issue, the reopening of assessment as well as assessment framed

M/S. N G Brothers, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 40, Kolkata

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

ITA 1877/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhumita Das, DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

delete the addition. The ground no. 4 is allowed. 8. Even on the legal issue, we note that the reopening of assessment made by the ld. AO based is upon the reasons recorded in A.Y. 2016- 17, which in our opinion, is not permissible under the Act. In order ... record his satisfaction and reasons to believe independently for each assessment year separately. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment based upon the reasons recorded in A.Y. 2016-17, is incorrect and cannot be sustained. Therefore, even on this issue, the reopening of assessment as well as assessment framed