← 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

Shri Prashant Ramjibhai Kandoliya, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), Rajkot

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee ( in ITA Nos

ITA 429/RJT/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 429, 430/Rjt/2017 & 358/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2011-12) Prashant Ramjibhai Kandoliya, Income Tax Officer, Sanjay & Company, Premjis, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Rajput Para Main Road, Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auhpk6407E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 16 To 25/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2006-07 To 2015-16) Chetankumar Haribhai The Acit, Bhalodiya, Prop. Of Yash Central Circle-1 Vs. Enterprise, 202, Darshan Rajkot Complex, Opp. Bombay Garage, Gondal Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adypb7423K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sunny Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned 13 Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Different Assessment Years, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn

For Appellant: Shri Sunny Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-D.R
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We find that reasons recorded by the assessing officer to reopen the assessment are as per the provisions of the Act. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention para No.2 of the assessment order, which deals with ... find that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has not raised this issue and did not object the reopening of assessment. Thus, the reopening and jurisdiction of the AO to proceed with the re- assessment u/s. 147 of the Act is fully in compliance with the decision

ACIT Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Jmp Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3792/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit, Circle-4(3)(1) Jmp Securities Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Vs. Perin Nariman St. Bazar Gate, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8850C (Appellant) : (Respondent) C. O. No. 182/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3792/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jmp Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(3)(1) 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Perin Nariman St. Bazar Gate, Fort, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8850C (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri. Omkandalkar Assessee By Respondent By : Shri. Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short)

For Respondent: Shri. Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 68Section 69

terms of section 151(ii) of the Act is a jurisdictional requirement and in the absence of complying with this requirement, the reopening of assessment would fail. The Calcutta High Court in K K Agarwal & Sons HUF v. ITO [WPA No. 25770 of 2022, dated 14-12-2022] while dealing