← 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

Kalinga Guest House and Resorts, Angul vs. Income Tax Officer, Angul Ward, Angul

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.249 & 241/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Kalinga Guest House & Resorts Vs Ito, Angul Ward, Angul C/O: Kamlesh Construction (P) Ltd Near Fci Chowk, Kulad, Po/Ps/Dist : Angul-759145 Pan No. :Aalfk 7123 P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Himanshu Jena & Narahari Swain, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, Himanshu Jena &For Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 151

Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act, the reopening of assessment was invalid. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble M.P.High Court in paras 7 to 10 are as under :- 7. We have considered

Jaiprakash Yadav, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, WD, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. (Thr.VC)For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

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 the Assessee ... 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 the Assessee

Manish Ranjan, DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Rashmin Kantilal Vakta, Ahmedabad

ITA 866/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

alleged unexplained transactions with Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. ("the Society") but also assailed the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. The challenge to reopening was raised through written submissions filed during appellate proceedings. 9. The learned CIT(A), after ... addition of Rs.19,46,57,904/- under section 69A, ignoring the evidences on record and the reconciliation furnished by the assessee. 3.1 The reopening of assessment under section 147 and issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are bad in law and void ab initio as the jurisdictional

Manish Ranjan, DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Ashram Road vs. Rashmin Kantilal Vakta, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad Gujarat

ITA 865/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

alleged unexplained transactions with Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. ("the Society") but also assailed the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. The challenge to reopening was raised through written submissions filed during appellate proceedings. 9. The learned CIT(A), after ... addition of Rs.19,46,57,904/- under section 69A, ignoring the evidences on record and the reconciliation furnished by the assessee. 3.1 The reopening of assessment under section 147 and issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are bad in law and void ab initio as the jurisdictional

Rashmin Kantilal Vakta, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 830/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

alleged unexplained transactions with Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. ("the Society") but also assailed the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. The challenge to reopening was raised through written submissions filed during appellate proceedings. 9. The learned CIT(A), after ... addition of Rs.19,46,57,904/- under section 69A, ignoring the evidences on record and the reconciliation furnished by the assessee. 3.1 The reopening of assessment under section 147 and issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are bad in law and void ab initio as the jurisdictional

Rashmin Kantilal Vakta, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 829/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

alleged unexplained transactions with Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. ("the Society") but also assailed the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. The challenge to reopening was raised through written submissions filed during appellate proceedings. 9. The learned CIT(A), after ... addition of Rs.19,46,57,904/- under section 69A, ignoring the evidences on record and the reconciliation furnished by the assessee. 3.1 The reopening of assessment under section 147 and issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are bad in law and void ab initio as the jurisdictional

Shri Pachamuthu Ravi, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3), Chennai

ITA 2346/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 2(22)(e)

four years by issue of impugned notice u/s.148(1) of the Act on 25.02.2020. The reasons recorded by the AO prior to reopening of assessment, reads as under:- Reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment: An amount of Rs.9.00 crores was paid by M/s. TRP Properties and Investments ... assessee to disclose true and full material facts prior to completion of order u/s 143(3). In the circumstances therefore the reopening of assessment after four years was claimed to be impermissible. 7. Further according to Ld AR, the AO has re-opened the assessment without application of mind, which

Anil Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee allowed for

ITA 2290/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Anil Parmar Ito-20(1)(1), Mumbai 13/2, Jain House, Jer Bai Wadia Road Vs Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai – 400012. [Pan No. Acapj5731D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 147Section 254(1)

appellant prays that the order passed by the ITO be struck down as bad in law. Without prejudice to Ground I Ground I: Reopening of assessment bad in law 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred ... confirming the action of Income Tax Officer (ITO) in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. Anil Parmar 2. The appellant prays that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is void ab initio and/or otherwise bad in law. Without prejudice to Ground

Kalavathi Devi Sharma, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nanded

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1519/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961, while making addition. 9. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the AO, who has reopened the assessment based on the report of the Investment Wing, without further Inquiry or verifying the credentials. 3 Kalavathi Devi Sharma 10. Any other ground which the Assessee ... that though the notice u/s. 148 was issued on 22/04/2021, which is after 01/04/2021, when an altogether new regime of taxation related to "reopening of assessment", had come into force, in the form of section 148A and sub-sections thereof. Further the appellant contended that the earlier notice

Kishor Jethalal Morbia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 582/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvs. Assessing Officer, Kishor Jethalal Morbia Assessment Unit, 304/310, Kailas Plaza, Income Tax Vallabh Baug Lane, Department Ghatkopar (East), Jurisdictional Mumbai-400 075 Assessing Officer, Ito 27(2)(1), Vashi Railway Station, Vashi Navi Mumbai- 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm4447J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anant N. Pai, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 250Section 51

assessee submitted that assessee does not press Ground no. 1, 2 and 3 which are legal grounds wherein the assessee has questioned the reopening of assessment and issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee has contested only the ground with respect to addition ... relied on the investigation report in which the script names M/s. SVC Resources Ltd., was held to be a Penny Stock and accordingly, reopened the assessment of the Assessee for the reason that the Assessee has transacted in the said script. We noticed that the reason for AO to make

M/S Vinayak Financial Consultants Private Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2695/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsyan & Shri RobinFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Provisions of the Income Tax Act and various judicial rulings in this regard, Section 147 of the Act empowers Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment, only if the conditions prescribed therein are satisfied, which may be listed as under. (1) The condition, as per clear language of sec147 ... reason to believe" is much stronger that "if AO believes" or "If AO has reason to suspect". In the other words, power for reopening of assessment is available, provided there is some tangible material having live nexus, with the formation of a reasonable belief that income chargeable

Namita Agrawal, Uttrakhand vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun, Income Tax Office

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/DDN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2019-20] Namita Agrawal, Vs Dcit, 36/1, E C Road, Dehradun, Central Circle, Uttarakhand-248001 Dehradun Pan-Afspa0668P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. & Shri Naman Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri S.K.Chaterjee, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 Order

Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69B

Goyanka 9. 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 ... 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

Ability Services Private Limited, Sakchi vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/RAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.20/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ability Services Pvt. Ltd…….....................…...........................……….……Appellant 232 Kumhar Para, New Baradwari Sakchi, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aacce1395H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 09, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 18.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Contract & Transportation & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.81,52,900/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Was Framed On A Total Assessed Income Of Rs.84,49,220/-. Subsequnetly, Proceedings U/S 148 Were Initiated Vide Notice Dated 30.03.2021 & Assessment Was Completed On 20.03.2022 Wherein The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Excess Depreciation Of Rs.36,64,657/- & Payment Of Epf/Esi Beyond The Due Date But Prior To Filing Of Return Of Rs.5,31,940/-

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

such failure has been established, the condition laid down in first proviso to section 147 of the Act is not satisfied and therefore reopening of assessment is not sustainable. 5.2 In this respect, the ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as in the case ... where it was held that mere change of opinion or vague assumption of the Assessing Officer is not a valid ground for reopening completed assessment, it must be based on failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for the assessment

Savita Gupta, Kota vs. ITO, Delhi

ITA 609/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

seller’s books and paid by the appellant was Rs. 16,20,000/-. Relying solely on this document, the Ld. AO reopened the assessment under section 147 on 28.04.2020 and passed an order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B. 2. The critical legal question that arises here is: Can proceedings under section ... Jaipur(supra)and held as under: “8. Learned counsel for both the parties, on the legal issue that where basis for reopening the assessment is information/material collected during search, would not dispute that in such a case, reassessment has to be done only by taking recourse to the provisions contained

Pramod Kumar Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

Officer processed under section 143(1) returns of income filed by assessee for assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 and subsequently he reopened said assessments on sole basis that assessee had not filed returns for years preceding to assessment year 2004-05 and, therefore, its income having escaped assessment ... reopening of assessment was on basis of suspicion and non- existent and incorrect facts and it was invalid" Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Dr. Ajit Gupta vs. ACIT, 383 ITR 361 (Del); B. Re-assessment, u/s 147, without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is invalid: Without prejudice

R.D. Vohra HUF, New Delhi vs. PCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 165 days in filing

ITA 4948/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, CA & Shri J.PFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

well-settled assumption of jurisdiction for re-assessment is illegal if the reasons were on wrong facts which clearly show that reopening of assessment was illegal and bad in law and, accordingly, impugned addition has to be deleted. 17. In Neha Goel Vs. PCIT, ITAT Delhi Bench “E” held

Manju Agarwal, Kishore Garden, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4423/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Kanwar, Sh. Shivam Jain &For Respondent: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 151

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH 'SMC', NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No

Anurag Pandey, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Civic Centre

ITA 3924/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT

ITO, Ward-18(), New Delhi vs. Nivia Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1009/DEL/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

No.2 submitted by Ld.AO is telling to this Hon'ble court that he has made additions exactly as per the reasons recorded before reopening of assessment. But the Ld.AO is nowhere challenged the ground No.5 being adjudicated by the Hon'ble CIT(A). (PB-33 and 28) The Ld.AO ... cannot be supplemented by recording new/detailed reasons. The AO cannot amend or change the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment. The deficiency in the reasons recorded at the time of issuing notice u/s 148 cannot be rectified later by recording new/detailed reasons

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Trilok Dewan, Sikar

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

ITA 303/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

would lead to a situation where, irrespective of statutory time- limits prescribed under Section 149, the Id. AO could indefinitely reopen completed assessments. 2.6.xi. In other words, any jurisdictional error committed by an AO in issuing a notice under a wrong section or due to incorrect invocation of powers could ... unlimited jurisdiction to 36 ITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025 DCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others reopen completed assessments. The Id. CIT(A), acting in appellate jurisdiction under Section 251, cannot revive or rectify jurisdictional mistakes made by the AO through such directions