“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

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

ITA 361/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

Rs.1 crore and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to benefit of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and, therefore, the reopening of assessment on the ground of accumulation of income by the AO was bad in law. It was submitted that the AO had wrongly assumed that

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

ITA 360/LKW/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

Rs.1 crore and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to benefit of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and, therefore, the reopening of assessment on the ground of accumulation of income by the AO was bad in law. It was submitted that the AO had wrongly assumed that

Ram Singh, District Kaithal, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kaithal, Income Tax Office, Ambala Road

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 920/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Of.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

that income had escaped assessment. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of appeal challenging the reopening of assessment. 9. The Ld. AR had submitted that the Assessing Officer had made the addition of Rs. 1,58,84,450/- on account of alleged

Kushal Vinodkumar Bhatt Legal Heir of Late Shri Vinodkumar Ramanlal Bhatt, Anand vs. The ACIT (OSD), Ward-5, Anand

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

ITA 752/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159(2)(b)

Vinodkumar Bhatt Legal Heir of Late Shri Vinodkumar Ramanlal Bhatt. vs. ACIT Page No 10 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, the reopening of assessment made in the hands of the dead person is invalid in law. Thereby the entire reassessment liable to be quashed. 12. In the result

M/S. Rkr Graphite Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 68

taken accommodation entry in form of bogus billing amounting to Rs. 1,41,68,122/- through sham transaction with paper entities, proposal for reopening of assessment was put up before the CCIT-2 and after getting approval a notice us/ 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 was issued requiring ... hereby reproduced herein below: “4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Case of the assessee has been reopened for Assessment Year 2014-15 by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. For re-opening the case of the assessee for Assessment Year

Satish Kumar Birdika, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 49(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1359/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)Section 68

issuing a notice under section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assesses from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments Sri krishna (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 87 Taxman 315/221 ITR 538 (SC)/[1996] 9 SCC 534. A table representing the prescription under ... Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. It is undisputed fact, the reopening of assessment in the present case is done beyond three years period. Hence the Specified Authority under clause (ii) of Section 151 namely PCCIT or Principal Director

M/S. Parvesh Construction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2714/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Mr. Nishit Gandhi

Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, and accordingly issued notice under Section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment. 3.2 In response thereto, the assessee, vide letter dated 16.04.2015, submitted that the return of income originally filed on 30.09.2009 be treated as having been ... very basis for the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. It was submitted that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment specifically referred to the receipt of share premium from M/s. Mangal Soga Private Limited, which the Assessing Officer alleged was not supported by commercial

Deepanshu Projects Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), C. R. Building

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1730/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)Section 234BSection 40

appropriate relief in accordance with law. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. 2 AO erred in reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act since the time limit for issuance of notice u/s 149(1) had elapsed. That on the facts ... circumstances of the case and without prejudice to the ground taken herein above, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act since the alleged transaction is outside the purview of section 149 as same is not covered under the definition of assets. That

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Merut, Meerut vs. Ashish Gupta, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 560/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshincome Tax Officer, Vs. Ashish Gupta, Ward-1(1)(1), R/O 125, Kamla Villa, Civil Meerut Lines, Saket, Meerut, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aatpg5413C

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

same was treated as invalid and non-est by the Learned AO. The assessee had also sought for furnishing of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. Since the return filed by the assessee in response to notice under section 148 of the Act was treated as non-est, the Learned ... furnish the reasons for reopening of assessment and also did not issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act in the reassessment proceedings. Ultimately, the reassessment proceedings stood completed after making an addition of Rs 43,54,001 under section

Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6), New Delhi vs. Munish Bajaj and Sons HUF, Delhi

ITA 2782/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 73(1)

reply as follows: "Please refer to your representative letter dated 29.11.2017 received through mail on 29.11.2017 vide which you have raised objection on reopening of assessment in your case for the Asstt. Year 2010-11. Vide above referred letter dated 29.11.2017, your representative Sh. Suraj Garg CA has objected ... tangible material and reason to believe that income has escaped assessment- held yes (Para 10) At the stage when the assessing officer reopens an assessment, it is not necessary that the material before the court should conclusively prove or establish that income has escaped assessment. A reason to believe

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem vs. Pandyan Grama Bank, Salem

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2870/CHNY/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2870/Chny/2024 & Co No.06/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 2870/Chny/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Pandyan Grama Bank, Income Tax, Vs. Now Known As Tamil Nadu Grama Circle 1, Bank, Salem. No.6, Yercaud Road, Hasthampatty, Salem – 636 007. [Pan: Aahat-7854-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate & Shri. P. Gurusamy, I.T.P. Department By : Shri. Shivanand K Kalakeri, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. Shivanand K Kalakeri, C.I.T

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 80P

which has come to his knowledge after the filing of the return and intimation under section 143(1), justifying the reopening. Therefore to reopen an assessment based on the return filed by the assessee will clearly be a case of change of opinion and consequently bad in law." 16. Moreover ... erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s.80P of the Act by not following the CBDT circular. Further, the ld.DR stated that the reopening of assessment has been done in accordance with law and hence prayed for setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the CO filed

Arpit Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 351/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.349, 350 & 351/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Arpit Goel Ito Office No.205, 4262/3, Vs. Ward 30(2), Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Arcpg8663J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

addition made u/s 69A of the Act. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment by the Assessing assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are undated. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the AO reopened ... recorded whether any approval has been taken by him from the competent authority before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act for reopening of assessments for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 creating a doubt whether at all the AO has obtained any prior mandatory prior

Arpit Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 350/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

Arpit Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 349/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Antriksh Growth Fund Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 397/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.397/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2006-07 बनाम Ito, M/S Antriksh Growth Fund Ltd., Ward-2(4), Vs. Ap09, Shalimar Bagh, Room No.398A, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Central Revenue Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No.Aacca3522C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No.155/Del/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No.397/Del/2016) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2006-07 बनाम M/S Antriksh Growth Fund Ltd., Ito, Ap09, Shalimar Bagh, Vs. Ward-2(4), Room No.398A, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Central Revenue Building, I.P. Estate, Pan No.Aacca3522C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 151Section 263Section 292BSection 68

Counsel submitted that against column no.7 of the proforma the AO has mentioned the provisions which are applicable for reopening the assessment as 147(C). Ld. Counsel submits that the appropriate authority granted approval without any application of mind even though the provisions of section 147(C) were not existed ... approval granted by the Ld. PCIT on the identical format, wherein the provisions of section 147(C) were to be invoked for reopening the assessment, it was held that the approval was granted in a mechanical manner and thus, the impugned reassessment order pursuant to such approval which was granted

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

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

ITA 290/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 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

Mukeshbhai Kashiram Vaghari, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 788/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 250Section 54FSection 69A

Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not passing order in regards to validity of reopening of assessment challenged by appellant. 6. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made u/s.69A of the Act by Ld.AO of Rs.60

Umeshbhai Ramanlal Shah, Nadiad vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Nadiad

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

ITA 1104/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

CENTRE [NFAC] DELHI has grievously erred both in law and on facts in not properly considering the ground No.1 of the appellant challenging reopening of assessment due to lack of reason regarding escapement of income merely to verify that there were deposit in bank account. There being no valid REASON

ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar vs. Leela Greenship Recycling Private Limited, Bhavnagar

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above directions

ITA 2135/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Commissioner V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Of Income Tax, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Circle-1, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, SR-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69C

issue relating to the validity of the reassessment initiated under section 147 of the Act. After setting out the statutory framework governing reopening of assessments and analysing a series of judicial pronouncements, the learned CIT(A) recorded a categorical finding that the reopening was valid. It was held that ... 2111/Ahd/2024 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act which is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

Bharat Shivaji Chavan, Sonarsiddhnagar vs. ITO Ward 5, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 876/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.876/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bharat Shivaji Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, At Sonarsiddhnagar, Post S Ward-5, Sangli. Kowthali, Tal Atpadi, District Solapur, Kotali – 413101. Maharashtra. Pan: Auwpc0996M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 30.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed U/S.144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 25.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

order may please be quashed. 5. On the Facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment beyond 4 years especially when allmaterial facts were disclosed in the return of income, therefore the action of reopening is void-ab-initio ... there is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer before recording the reasons. The reasons recorded are the most important basis for Reopening of Assessment. In this case, the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind as evident from the reasons recorded.Since these reasons have been approved