“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

ACIT CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3998/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

submitted that since there has been no fresh material in hand on the basis of which the Ld. Assessing Officer have reopened the assessment Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India ... assessee the word ‘commodities’ is to be read as ‘future and options’. 3.7. It is noted that ld. Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act by invoking the provisions given in Explanation to section 73 which prohibits set-off of losses of speculation business except

ACIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3995/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

Ravisum Creative Promotions Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Agro Investment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 8 (11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1616/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarravisun Creative Promotions Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Formerly Known As Ravisun Agro 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Investments Pvt. Ltd. New Marine Lines, Vs. 305, Surat Sadan, Surat Street, Churchgate, Masjit Bunder, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400049 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr 9224M Appellant By : Ms. Radha Halbe Respondent By : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

For Appellant: Ms. Radha HalbeFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 43B

short ‘CIT(A)], Mumbai for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11. 2. In Ground No.1, the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment under section (u/s.) 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). Ravisum Creative Promotions Pvt. Ltd. In couple of other ground ... ultimately completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, vide order dated 20.03.2012 accepting the income returned by the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act stating that though the assessee has made investment in shares capable of earning exempt income, however

Jethabhai Gokulbhai Gol, Banaskatha vs. ITO, Ward 1, Palanpur, Banaskantha

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2668/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69

both the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the addition made under section 69 of the Act. As regards the ground relating to reopening of assessment, the assessee contended that there was no fresh tangible material, that the reassessment was based merely on suspicion and amounted to a change ... constituted sufficient tangible material to form a prima facie belief of escapement of income. The CIT(Appeals) held that, at the stage of reopening, the Assessing Officer was not required to conclusively establish escapement of income and that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated under section

Society for Advancement in Education, Mussoorie vs. ITO Exemption Dehradun, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 220/DDN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 158

Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. – (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) adjudicated 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 manners :- “ Section 151, read with section 148 of the Income ... 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

Society for Advancement in Education, Mussoorie vs. ITO Exemption Word Dehradun, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 219/DDN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 158

Society for Advancement in Education, Mussoorie vs. ITO Exemption Word Dehradun, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 218/DDN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 158

Hotel Selection Grand, Tadepalligudem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

ITA 741/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.741/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year:2016-17) Hotel Selection Grand Gollagundam Centre K.N. Road Tadepalligudem-534101 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aakfh0778C] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 Aayakar Bhavan, 2-1-56/1 Opp. Punjab National Bank K.N.Road, Tadepalligudem – 534101 Andhra Pradesh करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Ravish Sood, Jm: : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca : Sri K.Prasad, Sr.Dr : 12.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश /Order The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 24.10.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short "A.O”) Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 06.01.2025 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: "1. The Notice Under Section 148 Issued On 18.04.20232 For The

Section 115BSection 142ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 234ASection 69A

given the minimum Seven (7) clear days for compliance, consequently the entire reassessment proceedings are invalid and void ab initio. 6. The reopening of assessment is invalid as the copy of the approval of the specified authority is not furnished to the assessee till date though the same is mandated ... guidelines for issue of notices under section 148. 7. The reopening of assessment is invalid as the same is based on an estimation report by DVO and the reference to the DVO was made without any pending proceedings and also without rejecting books of account by the Assessing Officer

Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Vijayawada vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 732/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

amended Section 149 of the Act, the impugned notice is beyond the period of six years from the Assessment Year 2017-18. The reopening of assessment proceedings have also been challenged on the ground that during pendency of the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act on the same issue ... Page. No 8 I.T.A.No.732/VIZ/2025 Andhra Pradesh Housing Board instant notice was issued prior to the expiry of six years period for reopening the assessment proceedings under the un-amended Section 149 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The order under Section 148A

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1894/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Exel Rubber (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaace4495J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 Hyderabad, Dated 11/10/2025 For The A.Y 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 69A

income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act and original computation of income and also requested to furnish the reasons for reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act. The A.O vide letter dated 07.02.2024 provided the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment to the assessee. Thereafter ... entry or entries in the books of account. The Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction with the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment regarding fulfilling of the conditions specified u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not even quantified that the income escaped assessment

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1884/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1876 & 1884/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) M/S. Vilas Polymer (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaacv9854A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Both Dated 31/10/2025, For The Asst. Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

under section 148 of the Act for acquiring jurisdiction as per section 148 of the Act. The AO recorded reasons for reopening of assessment by invoking clause (i) of explanation (2) whereas in the present case clause (iii) or (iv) of Explanation (2) is applicable. Further, as per clause

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1876/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals i

ITA 1874/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA M V PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

satisfaction of the conditions as laid down u/s 149(1)(b) of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act in pursuant to the search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act carried in case of the assessee

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad.

In the result, all the six appeals i

ITA 1873/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: CA M V PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

satisfaction of the conditions as laid down u/s 149(1)(b) of the IT. Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act in pursuant to the search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act carried in case of the assessee

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals i

ITA 1872/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: CA M V PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals i

ITA 1870/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: CA M V PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1571/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148

under section 148 of the Act for acquiring jurisdiction as per section 148 of the Act. The AO recorded reasons for reopening of assessment by invoking clause (i) of Explanation (2) whereas in the present case clause (iii) or (iv) of Explanation (2) is applicable. Further, as per clause

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1566/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.आ. अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1566 & 1571/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) M/S. Exel Rubber Private Ltd Vs. Hyderabad Dy.Cit Central Circle 1 (2) Hyderabad Pan:Aaace4495J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. आदेश/Order These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Both Dated 14/07/2025 For The A.Ys 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148

Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Kolkata vs. Delighted Holdings Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 882/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Ward-8(2), Kolkata…....……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Delighted Holdings Pvt. Ltd.…………………………..….....……...…..…..Respondent 12A, Lord Sinha Road, 1St Floor, R No102, Annapurna Apartment, Kol-71. [Pan: Aabce0588P] Appearances By: Shri Sandip Sarkar, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.05.2023 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 29 Days & The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons For The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 147Section 250

heard on 13.12.2023 and disposed off vide order dated 08.01.2024. We observe that vide said order the co-ordinate Bench has quashed the reopening of assessment u/s 147 on the ground that non-application of mind by the ld. AO as well as on borrowed satisfaction as stated hereinabove ... mistake which warrant recalling of the said order. Even if the order is recalled, it would not serve any meaningful purposes as the reopening of assessment has been quashed. Therefore, we are inclined to dismiss the MA filed by the Revenue.” 6. Keeping in view the above discussion, we find

Indian Clearing Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Addissional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 6381/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Indian Clearing Corporation Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, 25Th Floor, P.J. Tower, Vs. Circle-1(2)(1), Dalal Street, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aabci7140K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth A/W. Ms. Niyati Parikh For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 72

case and law the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in considering the case of the appellants as that of a "reopening of assessment" when issue of "reopening of assessment" was never involved. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law the learned Commissioner