← 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, Mumbai vs. Priti Nilesh Jain Daga, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4616/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

genuineness of these transaction on documents submitted by assessee and relied only on evidences collected by DDIT Kolkata which were good only for reopening of assessment and for making an addition holding that transaction were bogus, Assessing Officer should have made inquiries on documents submitted by assessee - Held, yes - Whether ... genuineness of these transaction on documents submitted by assessee and relied only on evidences collected by DDIT Kolkata which were good only for reopening of assessment and for making an addition holding that transaction were bogus, Assessing Officer should have made inquiries on documents submitted by assessee - Held, yes - Whether

Priti Nilesh Jain Daga, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4507/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

genuineness of these transaction on documents submitted by assessee and relied only on evidences collected by DDIT Kolkata which were good only for reopening of assessment and for making an addition holding that transaction were bogus, Assessing Officer should have made inquiries on documents submitted by assessee - Held, yes - Whether ... genuineness of these transaction on documents submitted by assessee and relied only on evidences collected by DDIT Kolkata which were good only for reopening of assessment and for making an addition holding that transaction were bogus, Assessing Officer should have made inquiries on documents submitted by assessee - Held, yes - Whether

Emmsons International Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

ITA 689/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

assessee on 26.03.2019 through postal department has been received by the assessee as only because the same has not been returned back. Reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act can only be justified upon issuance and service of notice under Section 148 of the Act which is sine

Prafula Kamlesh Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Surendranagar

ITA 808/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.808/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Prafula Kamlesh Thakkar Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Vs. C/O. M S Chhajed & Co. Ca, Surendranagar 363001 “Kamal Shanti” Nr Sardar Patel Statue, Ahmedabad 380014 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bmfpt2701K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Preyasi Tatad, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Pungalia , Ld Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03/03 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/ 03/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Preyasi tatad, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia , Ld CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

against law, equity & justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of reopening of assessment though it is bad and illegal as the case has been reopened on incorrect facts. 3. The Ld CIT(A) has erred ... though it is void & illegal as the order has been passed without providing materials on which reliance has been placed for reopening of assessment. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition made by the Ld. A.O. by making addition for purchase

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd., Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 169/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

served on the assessee. The assessee requested to treat the original return in response to the 148 notice and sought for reasons for reopening of assessment. 2.1. The Ld. A.O. furnished reasons recorded for reopening as follows: “Scrutiny records and submission produced during assessment pertaining ... reason whether the intent of the proviso is applied or not as there is no mention of proviso in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. After taking into consideration the language of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment, it is apparent that the AO has not discharged

Income Tax Officer Ward Hingoli Camp at Parbhani, Parbhani vs. Rajaram Ramswarup Jaju, Selu Parbhani

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in C

ITA 1882/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1882/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Ward Hingoli Camp At Vs. Rajaram Ramswarup Parbhani, Parbhani. Jaju, 223, Jaju Industries Atre Nagar, Selu, Parbhani- 431503. Pan : Aakpj4951H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.35//Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1882/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rajaram Ramswarup Jaju, Vs. Ito, Ward Hingoli 223, Jaju Industries Atre Camp At Parbhani, Nagar, Selu, Parbhani. Parbhani- 431503. Pan : Aakpj4951H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Assessee By : Shri Anand R. Partani & Shri Darshan R. Gattani Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Anand R. Partani &For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

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.” 11. Respectfully following the above decision passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court (supra), which was also followed in subsequent judgement passed

ITO WD 2(1), Kol, Kolkata vs. Infinity Housing Projects Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2255/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

case of Akshat Pramod Kumar Gupta vs. DCIT 153 taxmann.com 25 “it was held by the Hon. Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment based on information from investigation division is legally valid”. In light of these facts, the assessing officer’s action of reopening the assessment is upheld

The Nicoloson Co-Operative Town Bank Limited, Thanjavur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thanjavur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1783/CHNY/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1783/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Nicoloson Co-Operative Town Income Tax Officer, Bank Ltd., V. Ward (1), No 1120, East Main Street, Thanjavur. Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu 613001. [Pan: Aacft-3931-D] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappan, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 43D

following grounds of appeal: a. In the absence of fresh tangible material there cannot be a formation of belief in vacuum for reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. b. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.18 ... without any fresh tangible material. The ld.AR relied on the following judicial :-6-: ITA. No: 1783/Chny/2024 precedents in support of his argument on reopening of assessment was bad in law. - Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Royal Palms India Ltd and vice versa 2016(6) TNMI

Manoj Tantia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5944/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5944/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Baani Landbase Pvt Ltd., Dcit, Corporate One, Ground Floor, Vs. Circle-4(2), Plot No.5, District Center, Jasola, Central Revenue Building, Delhi. I.P. Estate, Delhi. Pan No.Aadcb0237E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 292B

issued on 30.06.2021 which is placed at page 33 of the PB along with the approval and reasons recorded for reopening the assessment which are placed at pages 34 to 36. Ld. Counsel referring to page 35 of the Paper Book which are the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment ... submitted that the AO proposed to reopen the assessment on the ground that a sum of Rs.3,56,75,993/- has escaped assessment. Ld. Counsel submitted that the basis for coming to such conclusion was stated in the reasons that the assessee company has created a provision of Rs.9.25 crores

Ramji Harakhji Fefar (HUF), Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot

ITA 397/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.397/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramji Harakhjifefar(Huf), Vs. The Ito, Ward-1 (1) (3), “Gayatri”, 3- Navjyot Park, Kalawad Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Road, Off 150Feet Ring Road, Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanhr5839R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shriabhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ldsr Dr Date Of Hearing : 20 /12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06 /03/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriAbhimanyu Singh Yadav, LdSR DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessee has paid Rs.12,52,528/- being twenty five percent (25.00%) share in property. 10. We note that all the information received for reopening of assessment is not correct. Information, base and issuing of notice for re-opening the assessment is transaction in purchase of immovable property of Rs.52

Shalini Jagwayan, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 987/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

fishing enquiry in hands of AO on mere suspicion or change of opinion could not satisfy expression "reason to believe" exposing Assessee for reopening of assessment. Notice for reopening of assessment was not in consonance and in conformity with under Section 147 and made specified notice vulnerable. High Court pointed

Annapurna Buildcon Infra Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Thane

ITA 6834/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

assessee. 2. 2. The AY 2014-15, being a year falling under “relevant assessment year", the assessee is also contesting the validity of reopening of assessment of AY 2014-15. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee herein belongs to ‘Span Group ... pertinent to note that the AY.2014-15 is the 7th year from the year in which the search has taken place. The AO has reopened the assessments of AY 2014-15 to 2020-21 under the provisions of section 153A of the Act consequent to the search conducted

Annapurna Buildcon Infra Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Thane

ITA 6833/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

assessee. 2. 2. The AY 2014-15, being a year falling under “relevant assessment year", the assessee is also contesting the validity of reopening of assessment of AY 2014-15. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee herein belongs to ‘Span Group ... pertinent to note that the AY.2014-15 is the 7th year from the year in which the search has taken place. The AO has reopened the assessments of AY 2014-15 to 2020-21 under the provisions of section 153A of the Act consequent to the search conducted

Annapurna Buildcon Infra Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Thane

ITA 6832/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

assessee. 2. 2. The AY 2014-15, being a year falling under “relevant assessment year", the assessee is also contesting the validity of reopening of assessment of AY 2014-15. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee herein belongs to ‘Span Group ... pertinent to note that the AY.2014-15 is the 7th year from the year in which the search has taken place. The AO has reopened the assessments of AY 2014-15 to 2020-21 under the provisions of section 153A of the Act consequent to the search conducted

Annapurna Buildcon Infra Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Thane

ITA 6831/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

assessee. 2. 2. The AY 2014-15, being a year falling under “relevant assessment year", the assessee is also contesting the validity of reopening of assessment of AY 2014-15. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee herein belongs to ‘Span Group ... pertinent to note that the AY.2014-15 is the 7th year from the year in which the search has taken place. The AO has reopened the assessments of AY 2014-15 to 2020-21 under the provisions of section 153A of the Act consequent to the search conducted

Annapurna Buildcon Infra Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Thane

ITA 6830/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

assessee. 2. 2. The AY 2014-15, being a year falling under “relevant assessment year", the assessee is also contesting the validity of reopening of assessment of AY 2014-15. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee herein belongs to ‘Span Group ... pertinent to note that the AY.2014-15 is the 7th year from the year in which the search has taken place. The AO has reopened the assessments of AY 2014-15 to 2020-21 under the provisions of section 153A of the Act consequent to the search conducted

Annapurna Buildcon Infra Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Thane

ITA 6829/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

assessee. 2. 2. The AY 2014-15, being a year falling under “relevant assessment year", the assessee is also contesting the validity of reopening of assessment of AY 2014-15. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee herein belongs to ‘Span Group ... pertinent to note that the AY.2014-15 is the 7th year from the year in which the search has taken place. The AO has reopened the assessments of AY 2014-15 to 2020-21 under the provisions of section 153A of the Act consequent to the search conducted

Annapurna Buildcon Infra Private Limited, Thane vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Thane

ITA 6828/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

assessee. 2. 2. The AY 2014-15, being a year falling under “relevant assessment year", the assessee is also contesting the validity of reopening of assessment of AY 2014-15. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee herein belongs to ‘Span Group ... pertinent to note that the AY.2014-15 is the 7th year from the year in which the search has taken place. The AO has reopened the assessments of AY 2014-15 to 2020-21 under the provisions of section 153A of the Act consequent to the search conducted

Annapurna Buildcon Infra Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Thane

ITA 6827/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

assessee. 2. 2. The AY 2014-15, being a year falling under “relevant assessment year", the assessee is also contesting the validity of reopening of assessment of AY 2014-15. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee herein belongs to ‘Span Group ... pertinent to note that the AY.2014-15 is the 7th year from the year in which the search has taken place. The AO has reopened the assessments of AY 2014-15 to 2020-21 under the provisions of section 153A of the Act consequent to the search conducted

Kuber Khaini Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and

ITA 885/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

deserve to be dismissed.” He submitted that the Id. CIT (A) has decided the issue relying on various case laws holding that the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act and the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act cannot be sustained and accordingly held that ... basis of report of DDIT (Inv.). Therefore, we are inclined to accept the findings given by the Id. CIT (A) that reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we uphold the order