← 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

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

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

ITA 302/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

assessee on the ground that on the amendment introduced with effect from 1-4-1989 in sub-section (1), which enables reopening of assessment based on any order of 'Court in any proceedings in any law', there is no corresponding amendment made in sub- section (2) of section ... facts because it was realised that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no action for reopening of assessment could be taken on the basis of detection of mistake alone unless there was also an allegation that the income had escaped assessment because

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Vaibhav Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 301/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

would lead to a situation where, irrespective of statutory time- limits prescribed under Section 149, the ld. 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 ld. CIT(A), acting in appellate jurisdiction under Section 251, cannot revive or rectify jurisdictional mistakes made by the AO through such directions

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

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

ITA 300/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

assessee on the ground that on the amendment introduced with effect from 1-4-1989 in sub-section (1), which enables reopening of assessment based on any order of 'Court in any proceedings in any law', there is no corresponding amendment made in sub- section (2) of section ... facts because it was realised that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no action for reopening of assessment could be taken on the basis of detection of mistake alone unless there was also an allegation that the income had escaped assessment because

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

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

ITA 299/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

assessee on the ground that on the amendment introduced with effect from 1-4-1989 in sub-section (1), which enables reopening of assessment based on any order of 'Court in any proceedings in any law', there is no corresponding amendment made in sub- section (2) of section ... facts because it was realised that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no action for reopening of assessment could be taken on the basis of detection of mistake alone unless there was also an allegation that the income had escaped assessment because

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Snehlata Agarwal, Sikar

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

ITA 298/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

assessee on the ground that on the amendment introduced with effect from 1-4-1989 in sub-section (1), which enables reopening of assessment based on any order of 'Court in any proceedings in any law', there is no corresponding amendment made in sub- section (2) of section ... facts because it was realised that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no action for reopening of assessment could be taken on the basis of detection of mistake alone unless there was also an allegation that the income had escaped assessment because

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Snehlata Agarwal, Sikar

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

ITA 297/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

assessee on the ground that on the amendment introduced with effect from 1-4-1989 in sub-section (1), which enables reopening of assessment based on any order of 'Court in any proceedings in any law', there is no corresponding amendment made in sub- section (2) of section ... facts because it was realised that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no action for reopening of assessment could be taken on the basis of detection of mistake alone unless there was also an allegation that the income had escaped assessment because

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Usha Banka, Sikar

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

ITA 296/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

assessee on the ground that on the amendment introduced with effect from 1-4-1989 in sub-section (1), which enables reopening of assessment based on any order of 'Court in any proceedings in any law', there is no corresponding amendment made in sub- section (2) of section ... facts because it was realised that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no action for reopening of assessment could be taken on the basis of detection of mistake alone unless there was also an allegation that the income had escaped assessment because

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Usha Banka, Sikar

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

ITA 295/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

assessee on the ground that on the amendment introduced with effect from 1-4-1989 in sub-section (1), which enables reopening of assessment based on any order of 'Court in any proceedings in any law', there is no corresponding amendment made in sub- section (2) of section ... facts because it was realised that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no action for reopening of assessment could be taken on the basis of detection of mistake alone unless there was also an allegation that the income had escaped assessment because

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Subhash Chandra Banka, Jaipur

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

ITA 294/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

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Subhash Chandra Banka, Sikar

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

ITA 293/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

assessee on the ground that on the amendment introduced with effect from 1-4-1989 in sub-section (1), which enables reopening of assessment based on any order of 'Court in any proceedings in any law', there is no corresponding amendment made in sub- section (2) of section ... facts because it was realised that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no action for reopening of assessment could be taken on the basis of detection of mistake alone unless there was also an allegation that the income had escaped assessment because

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Vipul Banka, Sikar

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

ITA 292/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

assessee on the ground that on the amendment introduced with effect from 1-4-1989 in sub-section (1), which enables reopening of assessment based on any order of 'Court in any proceedings in any law', there is no corresponding amendment made in sub- section (2) of section ... facts because it was realised that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no action for reopening of assessment could be taken on the basis of detection of mistake alone unless there was also an allegation that the income had escaped assessment because

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Vipul Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 291/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

would lead to a situation where, irrespective of statutory time- limits prescribed under Section 149, the ld. 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 ld. CIT(A), acting in appellate jurisdiction under Section 251, cannot revive or rectify jurisdictional mistakes made by the AO through such directions

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

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

ITA 289/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

assessee on the ground that on the amendment introduced with effect from 1-4-1989 in sub-section (1), which enables reopening of assessment based on any order of 'Court in any proceedings in any law', there is no corresponding amendment made in sub- section (2) of section ... facts because it was realised that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no action for reopening of assessment could be taken on the basis of detection of mistake alone unless there was also an allegation that the income had escaped assessment because

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

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

ITA 288/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

assessee on the ground that on the amendment introduced with effect from 1-4-1989 in sub-section (1), which enables reopening of assessment based on any order of 'Court in any proceedings in any law', there is no corresponding amendment made in sub- section (2) of section ... facts because it was realised that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no action for reopening of assessment could be taken on the basis of detection of mistake alone unless there was also an allegation that the income had escaped assessment because

Sanjaykumar Rameshbhai Mali, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 208Section 234Section 234ASection 234B

issue of Notice is bad in Law. 3. (a) Without prejudice your Appellant submits that the Reasons Recorded by the AO for Reopening the assessment are at dated 27-11-2019 which means after issue of notice u/s. 148 of 30-3- 2009 making the entire proceedings ... Reasons Recorded are for escapement of "Capital Gain and addition made as Income for “other sources” runs counter making the very basis of Reopening of Assessment bad in Law and Void. II On Merits: 1. Your Appellant submits that the amount of Rs. 5,40,0000/- received by your Appellant

Ramachandran Annapoorni, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 863/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Gowda, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

written submissions filed :- 5 -: before the FAA etc. The Ld.AR has also filed a brief written submission essentially challenging the reopening of assessment on two counts. The first facet of the legal contention raised by the Ld.AR is that notice was issued beyond three years and the income escaping assessment

Shah Brothers, Chaibasa vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, Revenue's appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 275/RAN/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.275/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shah Brothers, Chaibasa……...................…...........................……….……Appellant Sadar Bazar, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand-833201. [Pan: Aazfs7498F] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar & R. R. Mittal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.11.2023 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 Filed Its Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,04,03,980/- For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31.102.108 Accepting The Said Returned Income. Subsequently, Based On Information Received From Dcit, Cc-1(3), Mumbai, It Was Alleged That The Said Assessee Had Claimed A Bogus Contract Expenses Of Rs.2,69,14,526/- In Lieu Of The Bogus Work Order To M/S Pandhe Infracons Pvt. Ltd. During The F.Y 2015-16 Without Any Actual Work Had Been Performed. The Revenue Relied Upon Search Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Conducted On M/S

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 250Section 251

also deposited, hence no disallowance was warranted in 2016-17. However, while doing so, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2015-16. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal against the direction ... reduce, enhance or annul assessment order only for the year under appeal. The ld. CIT(A) has no authority to issue direction to reopen the assessment for other years. The ld. AR also stated that the assessee has never raised any ground relating to assessment year

Vinodchandra Madhabhai Lavri, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 151/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292C

agricultural income of Rs. 2,93,000/- and requested for a copy of the reason recorded for reopening of assessment. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 143(2) calling for details in respect of computation of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of immovable property. Since the assessee

Vinodchandra Madhabhai Lavri, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 150/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292C

agricultural income of Rs. 2,93,000/- and requested for a copy of the reason recorded for reopening of assessment. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 143(2) calling for details in respect of computation of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of immovable property. Since the assessee

Vinodchandra Madhabhai Lavri, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 149/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292C

agricultural income of Rs. 2,93,000/- and requested for a copy of the reason recorded for reopening of assessment. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 143(2) calling for details in respect of computation of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of immovable property. Since the assessee