← 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

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Rameswarpur Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is disposed of

ITA 1843/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of assessee has been partly allowed as the Ld. CIT(A) held that the reopening of assessment is bad in law. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 4. The Ld. D.R challenges the very impugned order ... exceeding a sum of rupees fifty lakh escaped the assessment for the AY 2014-15. 6. The appellant stated that, AO proceeded to reopen the assessment without addressing the legal issues and the factual issues brought on record by the appellant before him. 7. The appellant further contended that receivable

Pappu Jaiswal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

Allowing the petition the Court held that , since reassessment order was passed without disposing of assessee’s objections to reopening of assessment and without passing a speaking order, same was unjustified. Court also held that where claim of assessee of exemption of income under section 10(1) on proceeds from

Sanjeev Agarwal, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 72/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147

court in case of Kantibhai Dharamshibhai Narola (supra), wherein, this court has laid down the following aspects with regard to the law of reopening of assessment under I.T.A. No.72/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 10 section 147 of the Act which is well settled legal propositions wherein, it is held

Raudramukhi Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2023/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Raudramukhi Commerce Pvt. Ltd. I.T.O., Ward - 4(1) C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, West Bengal, 700069 Off Hare Street, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcr6446R Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Shri Sarnath Ghosh, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Madhumita Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh &For Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Das, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68

Assessing Officer did not correlate the information received by him from the Investigation Wing with the Income-Tax Return/accounts of the assessee. He reopened the assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without verifying about the genuineness of the information received. Such an information from Investigation Wing may give ... income has escaped assessment , the reassessment is unjustified. In view of the legal proposition as discussed above, we are inclined to quash the reopening of assessment order for the reasons of non-recording of any reason to believe and re-opening the case on borrowed satisfaction. 10. In the result

Wexford Sales Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1319/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No. 1319/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Wexford Sales Pvt. Limited,…………....Appellant 44, Ezra Street, Room No. 5A, Ground Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aaacw2151P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………….………………Respondent Ward-6(4), Kolkata

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Assessing Officer, which has never been served upon the assessee, is not an order in the eyes of law and, therefore, reopening of assessment based upon the said order cannot be sustained on this issue alone. The assessment under section 143(3) as well as assessment under section 147/143

Mcleod Russel India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1136/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1136/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Mcleod Russel India Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Kolkata-2 Four Mangoe Lane, Surendra Mohan Ghosh Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaace 6918 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.S.Saini, Ar & Ms. Priyanka Salarpuria, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024, Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Kolkata-2, U/S.263 Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2015-2016 On The Following Grounds :- 1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Cit Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S 263 By Invoking Of Section 263 Of The Act, Although The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Reassessment Order For A.Y. 2015-16 Which Is Sought To Be Revised By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Had Neither Considered The Issue Of Eligibility For Deduction U/S 801E Of The 1.T. Act In The Reassessment Proceedings Nor The Reopening Of The Assessment Made On That Ground. Therefore, The Issue Does Not Arise Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 Of The 1.T. Act, 1961. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case & Law, The Issue Of Notice U/S 263 Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Company

For Appellant: Shri N.S.Saini, AR & Ms. PriyankaFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 244ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 801ESection 80I

After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and perusing the relevant material on record, we find in this case that the reopening of assessment was made two times and accordingly reassessments were also framed u/s.147/143(3) of the Act two times i.e. dated 15.10.2018 and 15.03.2022. We note that

Thiruvambalam, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 518/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

individual filed his return of income on 22.07.2013 admitting total income of Rs.10,06,310/-. Notice u/s.148 was issued on 28.08.2019 for reopening of assessment. The reason for reopening of assessment was assessee purchased a property jointly with his brother, but assessee failed to prove source of investment made

Thiruvambalam, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 517/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

individual filed his return of income on 22.07.2013 admitting total income of Rs.10,06,310/-. Notice u/s.148 was issued on 28.08.2019 for reopening of assessment. The reason for reopening of assessment was assessee purchased a property jointly with his brother, but assessee failed to prove source of investment made

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Uttamchand Rajmal Jain, Mumbai

In the result the cross objection filed by the assessee stands allowed in terms of grounds 2, 5 and 7 and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4714/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

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

Shree Balaji Lumbers Private Limited, Gandhidham vs. ACIT Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 306/RJT/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini& Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: ShriChetan Agarwal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

have adjudicated the issue on merit and entire addition has been deleted, therefore, all other arguments of learned Counsel for the assessee, on reopening of assessment, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic and infructuous therefore, we do not adjudicate them. 16. In the result, the appeal

Moorthy, Salem vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Salem

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi VenkatramanFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

mind, a careful reading of Section 147 of the Act would show that it empowers an Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment, if, he has reason to believe, that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant year, ''and also bring to tax", any other income, which ... course of reassessment proceedings another aspect was discovered, the reassessment order would be valid, only if, the aspect, which led to the reopening of assessment, continues to form part of the reassessed income. 23. This view, as has been correctly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee, has found

Miker Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Ward-10(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 849/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

failed to appreciate that the information of alleged escapement of income is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case and reopening of assessment is without any application of mind and merely reason to suspect based on borrowed satisfaction without any tangible material and no such material or evidence

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incomet Tax. Circle- Ltu -2, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1678/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C NareshFor Respondent: ShriKrishna Kumar SR. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 90

passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 1448, even when no time was given to appellant to furnish objections to the draft assessment order. Reopening of Assessment 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, AO reopened ... quash and set aside the notice dated 25 March 2014 (Exhibit "A") issued by Respondents under section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2007-08, and order rejecting objections (Exhibit "W") dated 5 March, 2015.” 10. Petition disposed.” 9. The Ld.DR vehemently argued

Suman Kishore, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1434/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Goyanka 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 returning following findings ... 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

Shri Bharatbhai Raysinh Vala, Devali Deda, Kodinar, Dist. Junagadh vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Amreli

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

ITA 603/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148A

148A(B) required the appellant to show cause as to why his case shall not be reopened for scrutiny assessment u/s 147. The reopening of assessment was proposed based on the fact that appellant deposited cash of Rs. 1,23,83,100 and Rs. 92,88,230 (total

Uniseven Engineering and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2652/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

take up ITA No. 2652/Kol/2024. The issue raised in ground no. 1 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act when the notice issued u/s. 148 is barred by limitation. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed ... case of Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in WP(C) No. 17639/2022 order dated 13.12.2024 wherein it has been held that reopening of assessment for 2015-16 is not permissible in the extended period as per TOLA on and from 01.04.2021. The said decision has been followed

Uniseven Engineering and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2651/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

take up ITA No. 2652/Kol/2024. The issue raised in ground no. 1 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act when the notice issued u/s. 148 is barred by limitation. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed ... case of Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in WP(C) No. 17639/2022 order dated 13.12.2024 wherein it has been held that reopening of assessment for 2015-16 is not permissible in the extended period as per TOLA on and from 01.04.2021. The said decision has been followed

Highland Tardelink (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.O, NFAC.Delhi., Delhi

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

ITA 1104/KOL/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

below the rank of competent authority. It is pertinent to mention here that in the instant case reopening of assessment proceedings has been done within four years from the end of relevant assessment year. Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 24.11.2011 4 I.T.A. No. 1104/Kol/2023 Assessment Year ... paper book filed by the assessee and find that vide its letter dated 21.1.2022 were asked certified copy of reasons recording for reopening of assessment and approval from the competent authority. The said letter herein below: In compliance to the same, ITO, Ward-1, Kolkata has sent a reply which

Mr. Viren Rohitkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalmr. Viren Rohitkumar Shah, 02/009 Om Heera Pana Mall, Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400102 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaqps2809B V/S

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh JainFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

also raised the grounds on merits, challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer (“AO”). Since the ground challenging the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act has raised a jurisdictional issue, therefore, the same is considered at the outset. 4 6. During the hearing, the learned Authorized

Somnath Konduru, United States vs. I.T.O (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 148

issuing notice under section 148 dated 21.03.2021 is illegal, void abinitio and liable to be quashed, because the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on wrong assumption of facts that, the assessee an NRI, had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration, but, the fact remains that ... reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment and escapement of income and thus, the grounds taken by the assessee challenging the validity of reopening of assessment should be rejected. 8 ITA.No.179/Hyd./2024 10. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders