← 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

Anurag Yadav, Kannauj vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Kannauj, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 78/ALLD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Anurag Yadav V. The Income Tax Officer, Mahmoodpur Keerat, Nigoh Ward-4(2)(3) Khas, Chhibramau Kannauj, Income Tax Office, Kannauj-209721. Kannauj, Kannauj- 209721. Pan:Adbpy5023B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: (Application) Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: (Application)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

unsustainable in law as the same was not made in accordance with the provisions of Section 148 of the Act and also, the reopening of assessment was not in accordance with law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order

Jitendrabhai Bhagvanbhai Dalvadi, Surendranagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 124Section 127Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

further appeal before us. 12. Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld.Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that during assessment proceedings, the reopening of assessment was carried out without obtaining prior approval from higher authority. That is reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 148/147 of the Act, without taking permission from ... prescribed authority, hence reopening of assessment should be quashed on this score only. 13. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue, submitted that proper procedure was adopted by the assessing officer, so far reopening of the assessment is concerned. Jitendrabhai B Dalvadi 6 14. We have heard

Late Shri Chhatrasinh J.Vaghela Thru L/H Kamlaben C.Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 828/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B Before Dr. B.R.R. Kumar Kumar, , , , Vice Vice-Before Before Dr. B Dr. B Kumar Kumar Viceshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyallate Shri Chhatrasingh J. Vs. Vaghela, Income-Tax Officer, Through L/H Kamlaben C. Ward-1, Vaghela, At & Post : Sargasan, Gandhinagar Sargasan, Gandhinagar-382421 [Pan : Atnpv 4710 C]

For Appellant: Appellant byFor Respondent: Respondent by Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54B

settled position of law that if the very basis of reopening is factually incorrect, such reopening is bad in law. Therefore, the reopening of assessment u/s 147 in the present case is invalid and without jurisdiction, and hence, the assessment liable to be quashed. 4.4 Since we have already held

Ashok Somnath Sonawane, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Nashik, Nashik Maharashtra

ITA 2154/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2154/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Somnath Sonawane, Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik Tara Kutir Bunglow, Mahatma Nagar, Nashik-422005 Vs. Pan : Alops7734A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Vadulekar (Virtual) Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23-07-2025 Date Of 30-09-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Vadulekar (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 54BSection 63

Honours to allow the appeal against the order passed by CIT(A) under 250 of the Act.” 3. It is a case of reopening of assessment. Initially, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on 19.01.2016 by the then Ld. Assessing Officer ... income for the AY 2013-14 on 08.05.2019 declaring total income at Rs.8,84,066/-. The reason recorded by the Ld. AO for reopening of assessment is that the assessee has claimed exemption u/s 54B but at the same time failed to adhere to the provisions of section

Shri. Vijaysingh Madhavrao Patwardhan, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-26(1), Mumbai (Now DCIT-41(1)(1), Mumbai)

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

ITA 4993/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

that the addition made in the hands of the assessee for the relevant A.Y. was deleted by the Tribunal by holding that the reopening of assessment and the assessment order was itself invalid. The ld. AR further contended that since the assessment order was already quashed by the Tribunal

Setron Textile Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4847/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143Section 147Section 148

Learned Assessing Officer in not providing the evidence or statements of person on which reliance has been placed by the AO for reopening the assessment proceedings and further erred in not providing the cross examination of said person, specifically and repeatedly asked by the appellant, which clearly results into violation ... appellant has challenged the Validity of Reopening under Section 147 of the Act. The appellant has challenged the jurisdiction of the AO to reopen the assessment under section 147, claiming the reasons were based on incorrect and contradictory facts and without independent application of mind, thus violating principles of natural

Jyoti Jatin Chauhan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4838/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryms. Jyoti Jatin Chauhan, Ito, Ward-41(4)(2), Flat No.303, New Radheshyam Mumbai. Niwas Road No.17, Jawahar Vs. Nagar, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400062 Pan: Ajdpc 9522 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Thacker, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

hence, delay is condoned. 4. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that in the instant case, the reasons for reopening of assessment u/sec. 147 of the Act were recorded to the effect that the Assessee is one of the beneficiaries, who had traded in penny stock

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1640/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Umbrella Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. 3. The assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which are as follows: “Reopening of assessment U/s 148 of the Act is bad in law: 1. On the facts, circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order ... respect of reopening the assessment U/s 148 of the Act, without appreciating that the scrutiny assessment was completed for the year under consideration U/s 143(3) by passing order dated 27.02.2016 considering the issues relating to the Loans, therefore, the initiation and completion of re- assessment proceedings

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1450/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Umbrella Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. 3. The assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which are as follows: “Reopening of assessment U/s 148 of the Act is bad in law: 1. On the facts, circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order ... respect of reopening the assessment U/s 148 of the Act, without appreciating that the scrutiny assessment was completed for the year under consideration U/s 143(3) by passing order dated 27.02.2016 considering the issues relating to the Loans, therefore, the initiation and completion of re- assessment proceedings

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1449/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Umbrella Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. 3. The assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which are as follows: “Reopening of assessment U/s 148 of the Act is bad in law: 1. On the facts, circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order ... respect of reopening the assessment U/s 148 of the Act, without appreciating that the scrutiny assessment was completed for the year under consideration U/s 143(3) by passing order dated 27.02.2016 considering the issues relating to the Loans, therefore, the initiation and completion of re- assessment proceedings

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1448/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Umbrella Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. 3. The assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which are as follows: “Reopening of assessment U/s 148 of the Act is bad in law: 1. On the facts, circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order ... respect of reopening the assessment U/s 148 of the Act, without appreciating that the scrutiny assessment was completed for the year under consideration U/s 143(3) by passing order dated 27.02.2016 considering the issues relating to the Loans, therefore, the initiation and completion of re- assessment proceedings

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1411/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Umbrella Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. 3. The assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which are as follows: “Reopening of assessment U/s 148 of the Act is bad in law: 1. On the facts, circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order ... respect of reopening the assessment U/s 148 of the Act, without appreciating that the scrutiny assessment was completed for the year under consideration U/s 143(3) by passing order dated 27.02.2016 considering the issues relating to the Loans, therefore, the initiation and completion of re- assessment proceedings

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1410/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Umbrella Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. 3. The assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which are as follows: “Reopening of assessment U/s 148 of the Act is bad in law: 1. On the facts, circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order ... respect of reopening the assessment U/s 148 of the Act, without appreciating that the scrutiny assessment was completed for the year under consideration U/s 143(3) by passing order dated 27.02.2016 considering the issues relating to the Loans, therefore, the initiation and completion of re- assessment proceedings

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1409/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Umbrella Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. 3. The assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which are as follows: “Reopening of assessment U/s 148 of the Act is bad in law: 1. On the facts, circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order ... respect of reopening the assessment U/s 148 of the Act, without appreciating that the scrutiny assessment was completed for the year under consideration U/s 143(3) by passing order dated 27.02.2016 considering the issues relating to the Loans, therefore, the initiation and completion of re- assessment proceedings

Spirit Global Constructions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3821/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Spirit Global Vs Acit, Constructions Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle-15, Plot No.1, Lsc, Site No.37- Delhi 38, Morland, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaics2757B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amitosh Moitra, Ca & Roli Chaubey, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 26, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.10187/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company, Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 27.09.2012, Declaring Loss Of Inr 2,91,85,777/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) In Terms Of Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Income So Declared Was Accepted. Thereafter, Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened In Terms Of The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 31.03.2019 & Subsequently, Re-Assessment Order Was Passed On 24.12.2019 By Making Addition Of Inr 3.50 Crores Received From M/S. Anamika Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores & M/S. Gajraj Steel Merchants Pvt.Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores Each By Holding The Same As Unexplained Credits.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. – (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) examined the identical issue as to according the sanction for reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act by merely recording “Yes. I am satisfied”. and held that reopening on the basis of mechanical sanction is invalid by making following observations ... that where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under. Section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid – Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed – Held, yes [In favour of assessee] Search and Seizure-Procedure

Toyota Boshoku Corporation, Japan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) - International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumartoyota Boshoku Corporation, Vs. Acit, 1-1, Toyoda-Cho, Kariya Shi, Circle-3(1)(1), International Aichi, Japan Taxation, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadct4951B Assessee By : Ms. Reema Grewal, Ca Shri Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Reema Grewal, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149A

barred by limitation. Accordingly, the Additional Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 7. Since, reopening of assessment has been quashed, the adjudication of the other original grounds and additional grounds raised by the assessee become academic in nature and they are left open. 8. In the result

Man Mohan Agarwal, Meerut vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghazaibad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1214/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Man Mohan Agarwal, Vs Dcit/Acit, 1/8, Shri Laxmi Lok, New Central Circle, Mohanpuri, Sarrafa Bazar, Ghaziabad. Meerut, U.P-250002. Pan-Acapa1883B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

that there had been escapement of income of assessee from assessment because of his failure to disclose fully and truly nil material facts, reopening of assessment was justified Held, yes (Paras 6.1 and 6.3 to 6.8] [In favour of revenue) The above judgment of the Hon'ble High Court

Raghav Technology P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 8304/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Raghav Technology P. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, L-7A (Lgf) South Extension, Ward-20(4), Part-2, New Delhi. Pan: Aadcr 5922 J New Delhi Appellant Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 153C

held that the power vested in the commissioner u/s 151 to grant or not to grant approval to the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment is coupled with a duty. The commissioner is required to apply his mind to the proposal put 5 ITA No. 8304/Del/2019 ... hence cannot be lightly taken. Accordingly, we are of the view that in this case mechanical approval was given by the PCIT for reopening of assessment u/s 147 / 148. So being the case, in respectful compliance to the decisions discussed herein above, the notice u/s 148 attains nullity. Accordingly

Sunil Kumar Goyal, Neemuch vs. Dy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur

Appeals are disposed off,

ITA 363/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Deshpande, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Ayushi Sharma, JCIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH (VIRTUAL), JODHPUR. BEFORE: Dr. MITHA LAL. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER

Shailesh Maganlal Ramani, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1(2)(5), Rajkot

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

ITA 321/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.321/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shailesh Maganlal Ramani The Ito, Ward-1(2)(5), बनाम Star Shopping Centre 20 Rajkot New Jagnath, Jugatram, Vs. Raval Marg, Rajkot-360001 Pan : Abupr7272G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R. D. Lalchandani & Ms. Monica Patva, Ld. Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Dated 21-03-2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’], In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”) For The Asst. Year 2012-13. Shailesh Maganlal Ramani

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani &For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 282ASection 282A(1)

Bench that assessee does not wish to press ground no. 1 raised by the assessee, along with Form No.36, which relates to reopening of assessment after 4 years. We have heard Shailesh Maganlal Ramani ITA No.321 /RJT/2024 (AY : 2012-13) 3 both the parties, and dismiss additional ground ... assessing officer. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee challenged the reopening of the reassessment, however, the ld.CIT(A) held that reopening of assessment was valid. On merit, the ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee had no evidence in support of source of investment