← 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

Niraj Jayantilal Vora, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 33(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1137/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1137/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-10) Shri Niraj Jayantilal Vora V/S. Ito, Ward 33(2)(4), F/1, 1St Floor, Mahalaxmi बिधम Mumbai Building, Opp. Bal-Bharati Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra School, S. V. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Kandivali (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400051 400067 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpv1500B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151Section 250

assessee has preferred an appeal before the ITAT. The first ground of appeal challenges the legality of the reopening of assessment, while the second ground of appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 22,62,475/- on merits. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the material placed ... another broker Amit Jasani. As such, the information with the AO was correct though incomplete, but the same was sufficient to initiate the reopening of assessment; we are, therefore, of the view that Ld. AO had cogent reasons to believe, in view of the specific information available with him that

Narayanbhai Manjibhai Bodriya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4699/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 50CSection 56Section 69

order made based on those statements is bad in law. Further, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements for the proposition that reopening of assessment only on the basis of third-party statement and borrowed satisfaction is not justified: i. Shri Dnyaneswar Maharaj Sansthan Alandi Dewachi

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), Delhi vs. Atul Goel, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 4145/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.4145/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-19(1), 2Nd Floor, C R Building, I.P Estate, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. Atul Goel, S-33, Panchsheel Park, Hauz Khas, Delhi 110017 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aadpg-2222-P Co No. 111/Del/2024 (A.Y.2012-13) In Ita No. 4145/Del/2024 Atul Goel, S-33, Panchsheel Park, Hauz Khas, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aadpg-2222-P बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-19(1), 2Nd Floor, C R Building, I.P Estate, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Chartered Accountant Department By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 30/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CharteredFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

assailing findings of the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated 22.11.2019 passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act, inter alia challenging reopening of assessment as well as addition made by the AO on account of CCM. The CIT(A) has earned not only in holding reopening invalid but also deleted ... Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of the assessment order dated 22.11.2019 (supra) shows that the AO has reopened the assessment on the basis of information received from SFIO which intern was based on investigation made in the transactions of NSEL with regard

Nova Formworks Private Limited (Formely Known As Wonder Moldplast Private Limited), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 27(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1724/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy[Assessment Year 2008-09]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the jurisdictional LD.AO has erred, both in law and in facts, by assuming wrong jurisdiction in reopening the assessment, to issue notice under section 148, which is Act. 2. That the Id. AO erred both in law and on the facts ... Merely relying upon the statement of Mr. Navneet Kumar Singhania that the companies in question were 'paper companies', by itself, is insufficient to reopen the assessment, unless the AO had further information that these companies were non-existent after making further inquiries into the matter. It is clear that

ITO (E), Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6245/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

Officer to issue the notice of reopening under section 148 beyond the period of four years. On perusal of the reasons recorded before reopening the assessment, it is seen that the AO relied purely on the petition filed by the assessee in its own case ... matter which is fully disclosed and partly allowed previously by the AO and on subsequent appeal party allowed by the CIT(A) therefore reopening of assessment on ground of escapement of income/ tax is not valid - ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 65 DTR 249 /246

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Mass Communication Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 3130/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

escapement of income" is one of the fundamental conditions for initiation of reassessment proceedings. 6.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the reasons for reopening the assessment supplied to the assessee revealed that there was no allegation of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully ... material facts necessary for assessment. The reason for reopening the assessment was confined to escapement of income of Rs.50 Crores (payment made by the assessee to Lahiri). The reasons for reopening the assessment stated that certain materials were unearthed during the investigation in the case Sahara One Media & Entertainment

Lakhvir Singh 810, Vpo Mallah Tehsil Jagraon District Ludhiana, Punjab vs. The Assessment Unit NFAC Delhi Jao Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Moga, Punjab

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

ITA 541/ASR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

merits of the case relating to the addition of Rs.20,54,000/- and also on the issue of reopening of assessment u/s 147 on the basis of wrong reasons recorded and also agitated the issue that reassessment in this case has been done after three years where the income escaped

Joseph Syngkli, Nongpoh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shillong

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

ITA 157/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 250Section 251

adding the business income from contract, cash expenditure of Rs. 65,69,700/- which is stated to be the reasons for reopening of assessment as no source was explained and as the assessee failed to justify the allowability of the said expenses in view of the provisions of section

Late Oghadbhai Karabhai Odedra (L/H Babubhai Odedra), Porbandar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Porbandar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 915/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.915/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Late Oghadbhai Karabhai Odedara Vs. Income Tax Officer, (L/H Babubhai Oghadbhai Odedara) Ward-2(4), At Bavalvav, Porbandar, Porbandar Gujarat-360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajpo3410B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05/ 03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 127(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

only provided the extract of reason recorded by him. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment. 3. Transfer of assessee's case from one jurisdiction to other jurisdiction is not valid as transfer order is not provided to the assessee in terms of section ... Appeals) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment. 4. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the re-opening of assessment which was made only on the basis of information received from Bank and Ld AO has not provided his satisfaction for having "reasons to believe" for income escaping assessment

Aamnaben Gafar Madkiya, Jamnagar vs. ITO, Ward - 2(10), Jamnagar

ITA 761/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.761/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Amana Gafar Madakiya Vs. Ito, Ward – 2(10), Jamnagar, Ghela Patel Delo, Head Post Aaykar Bhawan, Nr Subhas Office, Ghachiwad, Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Jamnagar-361001 Highway, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bylpm2878L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per A. L. Saini, Am; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 07.08.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Dated 30/03/2022, U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 & 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 55A

claim as infructuous wherein the assessee has claimed that AO has not enquired about the transaction u/s. 133(6), which tantamount to that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 is invalid as it was solely based on the "reason to suspect" and not "reason to believe". 5. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals

Kamalesh Kumar Tripathi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 52(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2513/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2513/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Kamalesh Kumar Tripathi,…………….………Appellant Vishwasadan Co-Op. Housing Society, Action Area-1A, Plot No. Al/1/E/3, Flat 2B, Street No. 15, New Town, Kolkata-700156 [Pan:Abjpt4000B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………..……...Respondent Ward-52(2), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, Central Revenue Building, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri L.N. Dash, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 29, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

assessee complied with the notice under section 148 and filed return of income on 30.04.2019. The main allegation as per reasons recorded for reopening of assessment based on which the appellant’s case was reopened was that as per information passed by the DDIT (Inv.), Unit-7(3), Delhi ... sides. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted written submission by saying that the ld. Assessing Officer has not valid jurisdiction to reopen the assessment of the assessee under section 147. Since the incriminating material was found during the search of a third party, the ld. Assessing Officer wants

Romex Developers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1988/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1988/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Romex Developers Pvt. Limited,…..…………Appellant 23, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aafcr0812D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Chaudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 29, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234BSection 69A

C.I.T.(A) on 27.08.2024 is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. (2) For that on the facts and in circumstances of the case reopening of assessment under borrowed satisfaction is bad in law and should be set aside. (3) For that on the facts and in circumstances of the case

Anand Tyagi, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Meerut

ITA 385/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 151

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

Mahendra Rathi, Bikaner vs. ITO, Bikaner

ITA 299/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual) JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rosha Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 923/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2020-21
Section 148BSection 151

Court has categorically held that the purpose of obtaining sanction under Section 151 of the Act is to safeguard the assessee from mechanical reopening of assessments, and to ensure that the higher authority applies its mind to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before granting approval ... then stood, provided for automatic initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153A for six assessment years preceding the year of search. Similarly, reopening of assessments under Section 153C was also automatic in respect of “other persons" based on seized material. However, the legal position has now been settled

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rosha Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 922/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2019-20
Section 148BSection 151

Court has categorically held that the purpose of obtaining sanction under Section 151 of the Act is to safeguard the assessee from mechanical reopening of assessments, and to ensure that the higher authority applies its mind to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before granting approval ... then stood, provided for automatic initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153A for six assessment years preceding the year of search. Similarly, reopening of assessments under Section 153C was also automatic in respect of “other persons" based on seized material. However, the legal position has now been settled

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rosha Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 921/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 148BSection 151

Court has categorically held that the purpose of obtaining sanction under Section 151 of the Act is to safeguard the assessee from mechanical reopening of assessments, and to ensure that the higher authority applies its mind to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before granting approval ... then stood, provided for automatic initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153A for six assessment years preceding the year of search. Similarly, reopening of assessments under Section 153C was also automatic in respect of “other persons" based on seized material. However, the legal position has now been settled

Rosha Alloys P Limited, Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 888/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2018-2019
Section 148BSection 151

Court has categorically held that the purpose of obtaining sanction under Section 151 of the Act is to safeguard the assessee from mechanical reopening of assessments, and to ensure that the higher authority applies its mind to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before granting approval ... then stood, provided for automatic initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153A for six assessment years preceding the year of search. Similarly, reopening of assessments under Section 153C was also automatic in respect of “other persons" based on seized material. However, the legal position has now been settled

Vaishali Keshav Kulkarni, Pune vs. ITO Ward 13(2), Pune

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.540/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vaishali Keshav Kulkarni, Flat No.3, Hermes Grandstand Society, Kavade Maal Sopan Baug, Pune Cantt East So., Pune 411001. Pan: Atjpk4884A Appellant/ Assessee V The Income Tax Officer, S Ward-13(2), Pune. Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kartik Natrajan – Ca/Ar Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 13.12.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Dated 05/03/2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250

cannot be sustained. As noted earlier, what we find is that there are no reasons to believe but only reasons to suspect. Hence, reopening of assessment is not satisfactory. 10 In the circumstances, the rule issued on 13th April 2016 is made absolute. The impugned notice dated 20th March

Aashiyana Infrastructure Development Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3033/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanaashiyana Infrastructure Development Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (2), Private Limited, Delhi. Plot No.830, Near Asian Hospital, Sector 21A, Faridabad – 121 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aafca2236A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 28.05.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 24.04.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2012-13 On 28.09.2012 Declaring Income Of Rs.31,22,410/- Which Was Revised On 21.09.2013 At An Income Of Rs.22,16,310/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

information that assessee has obtained accommodation entry from the accommodation entry providers. Since assessee is a beneficiary of the same he proceeded to reopen the assessment. Since there was no compliance to the notices issued to the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed from the information received from Inv. Wing that ... borrowed satisfaction. 7. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC/CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reopening of Assessment under section 148 of the Act which was framed by ITO, Ward 1(2), Delhi without any application of mind. There is no formation