“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

Yashodhan Shanti Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4159/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 68

Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The primary argument of the ld. AR is that the AO has reopened the assessment without examining the records which fact are substantiated from the reason recorded where the AO himself is admitting that the case records of the assessee ... Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 6. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the AO has reopened the assessment based on the specific information that the assessee has entered into transactions of alleged bogus loan and therefore the AO has rightly had a reason

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2112/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

u/s.35(1)(ii) which shall be dealt with, if the need so arises since we will first take up jurisdictional issue challenging the reopening of assessments already completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3). 3.1. In all the three appeals, reopening has been initiated beyond the period of four years from ... Moons Technologies Ltd. AY 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 claim of exemption made by the assessee. Contention of the assessee that reopening of assessment is nothing but merely a change of opinion on the existing facts was accepted by the ld. CIT(A) in absence

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2111/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2110/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 26(1)(7), Mumbai

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

ITA 1916/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta, Ito Ward 26(1)(7), A-16, Ajanta Apartment, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bkc, Murar Road, Mulund West, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400080. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aqfps 6009 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Chothani, CA

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

that cash deposited belonged to that person cash deposited belonged to that person — are relevant and reliable are relevant and reliable leads for reopening of assessment reopening of assessment. The statement of Shri Jitendra . The statement of Shri Jitendra K. Palan identifies the assessee as the source and the beneficiary

Rakesh Gupta Family Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1881/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Rakesh Gupta Family Trust Acit-21(3), 335-B, Adhyaru Industrial Mumbai Estate, Sunmill Compound, Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 (Pan: Aaatr7251G) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, Advocate and Ms. Jigna Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Rakesh Gupta Family Trust AY 2011-12 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act which is invalid and bad in the eyes of law. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1819/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Ito Ward 22(3)(6), 405, Orchid Wing-F Lodha Crown, Piramal Chamber, Taloja Bypass Road, Kohni B.O. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Khoni, Thane-421204. Pan No. Alepm 8472 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. V.P. KothariFor Respondent: Mr. Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(A)Section 54

seen that at the time of reopening of 5.7 In the present case it is seen that at the time of reopening of assessment, the alleged escapement was Rs 71,00,000 which is more assessment, the alleged escapement was Rs 71,00,000 which is more assessment, the alleged ... under section 148 of the Act coul Consequently, no notice under section 148 of the Act coul be issued against the assessee for reopening an assessment beyond be issued against the assessee for reopening an assessment beyond be issued against the assessee for reopening an assessment beyond the period

Goodluck Metal Corporation, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1771/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Goodluck Metal Corporation, Assessing Officer Circle 19(1), 98, Khetwadi Main Road, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 004. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaafg 1441 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjiv Shah, Adv

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 153A

facts and in law, and without prejudice to ground no. 1 above the Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the reopening of assessment proceeding u/s 147 merely on the basis of generalized statement of Shri Bhanwarial Jain without any other material available on record. Goodluck Metal Corporation Goodluck Metal Corporation ... reasons recorded. He submitted that there Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded. He submitted that there was no tangible material to reopen the assessment no tangible material to reopen the assessment and there was no tangible material to reopen the assessment no live link of the material the material

Lilavantiben Gordhanbhai Padariya, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot

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

ITA 372/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 372/Rjt/ 2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Lilavantiben Gordhanbhai Padariya Vs. Ito, Wd – 1(1)(3), Rajkot Vrajdham, Shardanagar Main Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Mabdi Road, Rajkot – 360001 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgpp7067E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 09.09.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 04.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Upholding Validity Of Assessment U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. 2 The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Confirming Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs. 1,11,13,196/- By Way Of Alleged Difference Between Sales As Per Annual Vat Return & Sales As Per Audited Accounts By Failing To Appreciate That The Alleged Difference Was Duly Reconciled & Explained.

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

book & written submission filed by the assessee before this Tribunal and all are on record. That the case was reopened and in the reopened assessment assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 1,11,13,196/-. (a) On perusal of record of assessment we found that the profit and loss ... statements. 13. Since we allow the appeal of the assessee on merit, therefore we did not adjudicate the ground no. 1 challenging the reopening of assessment is becomes academic in nature. The ground no. 4 is general in nature do not require adjudication. 14. In the result, the appeal filed

Raymix Concrete India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2770/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mrs. Lekha, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 37

materials in the assessment records, which is not permitted under the law. Further, the ld.AR drew our attention to the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment and stated that the profit and loss account was very much existing before the AO during the original assessment proceedings which is evident from ... ld.AR for the assessee on the preliminary issue raised :-7-: ITA. No:2770 /Chny/2024 in this case challenging the validity of reopening of assessment, it is relevant to refer to the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening, which are extracted below: - “The assessee company filed its return of income

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed on merits the various legal contentions in the C

ITA 2242/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Nikhil

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 250

Ground: 2 erred in passing order under section 147 of the Act by reopening of original assessment order without appreciating that condition for reopening of assessment are not satisfied in the present case; No failure on part of the Assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts: 3. erred ... reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without recording its satisfaction in the reasons for reopening about failure of assessee to disclose facts truly and fully during the course of assessment proceedings hence the entire reopening

Santosh Rani Legal Heir of Late Sh Parveen Kalyan, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4770/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Santosh Rani Vs Ito, Legal Heir Of Late Shri Parveen Ward-1, Karnal, Kalyan, Krishna Nagar, Gamri, Haryana-132001. Thanesar, Distt.-Kurukshetra, Haryana-136118. Pan-Awhpr4944D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Suresh K.Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

escaped assessment. There is non-application of mind by the AO could not be said to have reason to believe as to justify reopening of assessment." Without prejudice to above, the Ld AO missed out the fact that prior to cash deposit of Rs.95,00,000/- on 13.05.2010/14.05.2010 there ... Court in case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (2014) 246 ITR 363 (MP) examined the issue of granting approval for reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act by merely recording satisfaction “Yes. I am satisfied” and held that reopening on the basis of such approval

Arun Duggal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3075/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Arun Duggal, Vs Dcit, 3E-42, Nit, Faridabad, Central Circle-1, Haryana-121001. Faridabad. Pan-Agupd5708Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Gurgaon [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.617/Cit(A)-3/Ggn/2016-17 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Heard By The Co-Ordinate “E” Bench Of The Tribunal & Was Decided In Terms Of Order Dated 01.04.2022 Wherein Co-Ordinate Bench Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) Bearing No.100/Del/2022 U/S 254(2) Of The Act. The Co-Ordinate Bench Vide Its Order Dated 09.04.2025 Has Decided The M.A. Filed By Assessee Wherein Order Of Co-Ordinate Bench Dated 04.01.2022 Is Recalled For The Limited Purposes Of Adjudication Of Three Grounds Of Appeal Taken In The Original Form 36. These Grounds Of Appeal Are Bearing Nos.1.2, 1.8 & 5. The Relevant Observations Of The Co-Ordinate Bench In Para 16 Of The Order Of Ma Are As Under:-

Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 254(2)Section 68

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 ... 1357/2016 order dated 25.09.2017 has issued guidelines to the Revenue authorities while granting the approval before issue of notice for reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act. Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “19. Before parting with the case, the Court would like to observe that

Priyesh Singhania, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194D

issue, which raises a question of fact and can be done only on scrutiny ssessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act or by reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. 1.4 It is an established legal position that an addition made by the CPC under Section 143(1) based

Mo. Shariph Kureshi, Sikar vs. ITO Ward-4 Sikar, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

that the AO has to restrict the assessment or reassessment proceedings only to the issues in respect of which reasons were recorded for reopening the assessment—However, Expln. 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part ... fishing enquiry in hands of AO on mere suspicion or change of opinion could not satisfy expression "reason to believe" exposing Assessee for reopening of assessment. Notice for reopening of assessment was not in consonance and in conformity with under Section 147 and made specified notice vulnerable. High Court pointed

Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel, HUF, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 47/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

beyond the four year period. The Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page 1 of Paper-Book i.e. the “reasons for reopening of assessment”. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that accounts of the assessee were duly audited under section 44AB of the Act and the tax audit ... held that when there is no failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment, reopening of assessment beyond four years ITA Nos. 45to47/Ahd/2025 & 266&267/Ahd/2025 Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF vs. ITO ITO vs. Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF Asst. Years