← All Phrases

“reassessment proceedings”

ReassessmentSections 147-151Sections 147-1518,150 judgments

The decision most relied on for reassessment proceedings is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reassessment proceedings

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

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.

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das
103 ITR 437 · 1976 · Supreme Court
721
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar
268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court
695
citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

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.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT
336 ITR 136 · 2011 · High Court
398
citing judgments

In reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148, the Assessing Officer can assess other income not specified in the original notice if the initial ground for reopening assessment is found to be valid. However, if the income for which the assessment was initially reopened is found not to have escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot proceed to assess any other income.

Judgments citing reassessment proceedings

Anandavadi Primary Agrl Coop Credit Society Limited R777, Sendurai vs. Income Tax Officer, Perambalur

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

ITA 2320/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2320/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Anandavadi Primary Agril. Co-Op. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Credit Society Limited R777, Chinna Perambalur. Anandavadi, Sendurai, Ariyalur 621718, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu [Pan: Aatfa1893N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Petition Filed, But, However, Filed An Application Seeking Permission To File Additional

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

additional ground of appeal challenging assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Additional ground: That the reassessment proceedings initiated for the Assessment Year 2020- 21 are bad in law and viod ab initio, as the notice under section 148 of the Income

Anjali Jain, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 53(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3239/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3239/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2017-18) Anjali Jain, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant R-25, Ndse-Ii, New Delhi 110049 Pan: Aaipj-2323-D बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-53(1) ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : S/Shri Sanchit Jain, Chartered Accountant & Archit Agarwal, "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 24/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 11.04.2025, For Assessment Year 2017-18.] 2. Shri Sanchit Jain, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Gold, Diamond & Precious Stone Jewelry. For The Impugned Assessment Year, The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 31.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,99,260/-. The Case Of The Assessee For Ay 2017-18 Was Reopened & Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated

For Appellant: S/Shri Sanchit Jain, Chartered Accountant &For Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 151Section 69A

paper book. He submitted that the said approval has been granted in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind, hence, the reassessment proceedings 3 based on mechanical approval are unsustainable. The ld. AR asserted that approval granted by the Additional CIT is without examining the records. It clearly shows

Sri Prem Properties Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sri Prem Properties Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 24 (1), A – 99, Bajghera Chowk, Delhi. New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon – 122 017 (Haryana). (Pan :Aaacs2554E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Skasham Agarwal, Ca Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)]Dated 04.01.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 30.09.2012 Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,15,340/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny For The Year Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148

have initiated proceedings u/s 153C, since there was no material forwarded by the investigation wing, the AO merely recorded the reasons for initiating the reassessment proceedings, he merely borrowed the satisfaction from the mere observations of the investigation wing for the reason that similar forfeiture was also claimed ... were already submitted before the Assessing Officer and the AO had not carried out any investigations at that stage and proceeded to initiate the reassessment proceeding with the borrowed satisfaction. This is clearly an initiation of proceedings without the jurisdiction at the initiation stage itself, therefore, the proceedings is nothing