“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

Santosh Rathore, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore - 1, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 451/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

taxation by the assessee. ! am therefore, satisfied and have reason to believe that this is a fit case which deserves to be reopened for assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, notice u% 148 shall be issued after getting approval from the appropriate ... kindly be provided to the assessee. Because, it seems from the recorded reasons, that there is no material and no information available for reopening the assessment and the Te-assessment proceedings have been initiated without any basis 3 jutisdiction a ws. 148 of the Act has been assumed erroneously

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 710/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

held by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court as under:- 14. In view of above, it is clear that the entire basis for reopening the assessment is nothing but the material and information collected during search conducted in the premises of another assessee Collection of details relating to search would ... petitioner is correct in submitting that in fact search was carried out in the year 2016 and the respondents had the authority to reopen the assessment by invoking the powers under section 1530 of the Act of 1961 and draw reassessment proceedings under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 709/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

Bankim Education Trust, Dahod vs. The ITO, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 442/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-D.R

Section 144Section 147

ground of non-compliances with notices and also not quashing the reassessment order on the ground of illegality of initiation of reopening of assessment which was without jurisdiction. It be so held now and order passed by CIT(A)/NFAC be set aside. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground

Thanaraj Sumathi, Mayiladuthurai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2031/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2031/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2019-20 Thanaraj Sumathi, Income Tax Officer, No.3/25, North Street, Vs. Ward-1 Moovalur, Kumbakonam. Mayiladuthurai – 609806. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Knyps-1061-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Cit. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, the preliminary issue to be decided is whether the assumption of jurisdiction for reopening the assessment by Jurisdictional Assessment Officer(JAO) as against Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) could be considered as valid. This goes to the root of the matter ... issued notice on the same day u/s.148 of the Act on 31.03.2022 [refer Page No.9 of the Paper Book], and pursuant to it, reopened the assessment for AY 2018-19 u/s.147 of the Act and thereafter passed the re/assessment order on 16.03.2023. The action of JAO issuing impugned notice dated

Anthonymuthu Udayar Xavier, Sivaganga vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1943/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:1943/Chny/2024 धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15 Anthonymuthu Udayar Xavier, Income Tax Officer, 78 Mgr Salai, Vs. Ward-1 Soodamanipuram, Karaikudi. Karaikudi, Sivaganga – 630 002. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaapx-3145-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit. सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

rupees. Separate instruction shall be issued regarding procedure for disposing these cases. :-9-: ITA. No:1943/Chny/2024 9. Admittedly, in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, the Learned AO had formed a belief that income of the assessee to the tune of Rs 32,47,512/- had escaped assessment. Since ... payable to the appellant. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (emphasis supplied by us) 9.1. Hence the reopening of assessment is to be quashed on this count also. 10. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold

Ruby Rajendra P Tiwari, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3546/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ChaudharyFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 192Section 45Section 69ASection 69C

Unexplained Investment) + 3,72,455 + 3,72,455 (Credit Card Bills)). 6. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and facts by reopening of Assessment under sec 147 of the Income tax where there is no escapement of taxable income.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee

Walmark Garment Compamy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 6979/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhriwalmark Garment Company Vs. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. Ward 14(3)(1), Ch. No. 9 , Shop No. 18, Aayakar Bhavan, Porbandarwala Chawl, Mumbai-400020. Chiragnagar, L.B.S Marg, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400086. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacw9438P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar JhaFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

that these have also been dealt in the order of ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s objections relating to the reopening of assessment are disposed off as under: 5.1 Absence of Tangible material for reopening: Ld. AR has submitted that the reopening was based on generic data without any specific

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kalyan vs. Manoj Gunomal Rochlani, Ulhasnagar

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5876/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Acit, Circle-1 Manoj Gunomal Rochlani 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza 48, Roshan Apartment Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada Vs. Netaji Road, Ulhasnagar Kalyan West, Maharahstra Maharashtra-421 004. 421 301. Pan : Ahppr0833A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Annavaran KasuriFor Respondent: Ms. Manisha Ghind

Section 148Section 68

list of accommodation entries provided in the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department. Secondly, the Revenue did not challenge the quashing of reopening of assessment by Ld. CIT(A). In 3 Manoj Gunomal Rochlani view of the same, on the reopening issue as well as on merits that appellant took

Steelwill Globotech Private Limited, Faridabad, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, ground nos

ITA 1466/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal (Through VC), &For Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT(DR)

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 92C

issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In the order passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, the AO reiterated the reason for reopening the assessment i.e. unexplained credit of Rs. 4,13,21,500/- in the bank account. The Assessing Officer on 29.02.2024 passed the draft assessment order ... addition has been made only on the ground other than for which the AO had reasons to believe for reopening of assessment, such addition is unsustainable. 7. In the result, ground nos. 3 to 6 of appeal are allowed. 8. In ground no. 1 & 2 of appeal, the assessee

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4309/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

assessee. The Ld. AR submits that it is a trite law that a Revenue cannot supplement fresh reason for reopening of assessment by relying upon any further material not forming part of the reasons recorded which Ashish Kalra vs. ACIT could be read as itself. For this he placed reliance ... that there should be a live link between the material found which is not present in the case, therefore, the action taken for reopening the assessment deserves to be held to bad in law. He further submits a written submission in this regard which reads as under: “1. No Tangible

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4308/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Jalandhar, Civil Lines vs. Sh. Barjesh Singhal, Modern Colony

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 363/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Written submission)

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

erred to allow the appeal of the assessee and quashed the assessment u/s 147 by holding that the proceedings initiated for reopening of assessment on mere change of opinion is not correct because the AO has opened the case u/s 147 within the time period and AO have reasons ... income. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that the reopening of assessment is not sustainable, ignoring the aspect that there is not conclusive discussion on the issue of genuineness and credit worthiness of the lenders

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

However, something therein which is critical to the formation of the belief must be referred to. Otherwise the link goes missing. 24. The reopening of assessment under Section 147 is a potent power not to be lightly exercised. It certainly cannot be invoked casually or mechanically. The heart ... committed by the ITAT in the impugned order in concluding that the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act to reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law." Subsequently, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of RMG Polyvinyl

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Bhikhabhai H Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

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

ITA 886/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming action of AO reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act. Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 2– 3. The reopening of assessment is required to be quashed as same has been barred by limitation. 4. Both

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata vs. Flex Trade Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1828/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

Based on the above decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Movish Realtech Private Ltd. vs. DCIT [W.P. (C) 5865/2023] the reopening of assessment based solely on the statement of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehata is unlawful and without jurisdiction. The said statement does not in any way implicate

Arham Anmol Projects Private Limited, Village Valshind, Bhiwandi vs. Circle 1 Kalyan, Kalyan, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is disposed of accordingly in

ITA 4929/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 748

reopening the case. 1.1 The notice dated 2913/2027 u/s 748 does not have digital signature as per CBDT's DSC Policy 2018, therefore, reopening of assessment is wrong hence assessment should have been declared invalid ab initial by CIT(A)/NFAC. 1.2 The AO is silent as to when