“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

Kailash Regency Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 12(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2514/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

nos.1 and 2, the order of Id. CIT (A) in not deciding the legal issue raised by the assessee which is against the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act in violation of provisions of the Act. 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the original ... into by the assessee. There is total non-application of mind on the part of the Id. AO to the information received. Therefore, reopening of assessment on the basis of such cryptic and vague reasons cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I quash the reopening of assessment

DCIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Income Tax Department vs. Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 4707/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah Room 732, 7Th Floor, B-1408, Shankar Park, Agrawal Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400 051 West, Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aafps1306Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi - CAFor Respondent: Shri BhangepatilPushkaraj Ramesh

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

that the reassessment is bad in law and, therefore, any addition on account of alleged escaped income cannot be sustained. The Ld. AO reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act,by issuing a notice under Section 148 dated 30.03.2019. From the copy of the recorded reasons for reopening ... evident that the Ld. AO reopened the assessment for alleged AY 2012–13 with the objective of taxing alleged escaped income arising from various cash transactions, as recorded in the said reasons. The Ld. AR submitted that the reopening was based on an apparent duplication of transactions and erroneous conclusions

Pukhraj, Bharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1, Bharatpur

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

ITA 1114/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalpukhraj, C/O. Virendra Singh Gothiya, Atal Bandh Gate, Dhau Pyasa, Bharatpur 321 001 Pan No.: Birpp 6009G ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bharatpur ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sankalp Pitaliya, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT- Ld. DR

Section 148Section 250

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" So, the reopening of assessment with mechanical approval of PCIT, without application of mind is invalid and order passed was liable

ACIT, Circlle-34, Kolkata vs. Subhas Kumar Kedia, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1677/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Loyalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 246ASection 3Section 69A

second round of litigation, we are constrained to go a step further to consider as to whether there was any justification for reopening the assessment. Reopening of the assessment is alleged to have been based upon Information given by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Unit-2(4), Kolkata ... independently apply its mind to the information furnished by the DDIT which he is required to do while exercising the power to reopen an assessment. The appellant vide his submission dated 23.5.2024 has submitted that the revenue had filed a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), Delhi vs. Vikas Strips Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 2811/DEL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Vikas Strips Pvt. Ltd, Circle-25(1), 10, Ashoka Park, Rohtak Delhi Road, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcv7134J

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 68

circumstances of the instant case. The assessee had filed a petition under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules challenging the validity of reopening of assessment on various grounds. One such ground raised is that the approval u/s 151 of the Act was granted by the competent authority in a mechanical ... manner for reopening the assessment of the assessee for the year under consideration. We find that this issue goes to the root of the matter and accordingly, we deem it fit to take up the same first. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available

Revathikumar Sudha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncw-19(1), Chennai

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 305/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 304 & 305/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Revathikumar Sudha, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 29, 3Rd Main Road, Thilaiganga Income Tax, Nagar, Chennai 600 061. Non Corporate Ward –19(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aztps-8926-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Both Dated 12.12.2024 Pertains To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Towards Quantum Addition As Well As Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

assessee raised 15 grounds of appeal, wherein, besides challenging exparte order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee also disputed the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. :-2-: ITA. Nos: 304 & 305/Chny/2025 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed ... submissions/ documentary evidences, if any, as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim. 9. With regard to the issue of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Revathikumar Sudha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncw-19(1, Chennai

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 304/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56