← 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

Goodluck Metal Corporation, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1771/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Goodluck Metal Corporation, Assessing Officer Circle 19(1), 98, Khetwadi Main Road, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 004. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaafg 1441 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjiv Shah, Adv
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 153A

assessee to objection raised by the assessee to the notice u/s 148 of the Act notice u/s 148 of the Act and thereafter commenced reassessment proceedings. During the mmenced reassessment proceedings. During the mmenced reassessment proceedings. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer brought to the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing ... Officer brought to the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer brought to the knowledge of the assessee the factual observations made during the knowledge of the assessee the factual observations made during the knowledge of the assessee the factual observations made during the course of search on Shri Bhawarlal Jain course

Basudeo Soni, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 35(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 4894/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4894/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Basudeo Soni, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O B-50, Lgf, South Extension-Ii, Ward-35(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agyps4983N Assessee By: Sh. Saantanu Jain, Adv. & Ms. Jahanvi Khanna, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Saantanu Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 29A

Income Tax Officer Ward 25 3 Delhi & Ors.(supra), a Coordinate Bench of this court examined the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings, in cases where the income alleged to have escaped assessment was ?50,00,000/- or less. In the aforesaid context, this court also considered the question ... amended 1961 Act, the issue concerning limitation is inextricably intertwined with two aspects: (a) First, the rank of the authority granting approval/sanction for triggering reassessment proceedings. (b) Second, the quantum of income which has escaped assessment.” (Emphasis is ours) 12. Clearly, the Revenue advanced the argument of interlinkage between limitation

Seema Goel, Delhi vs. CIT A, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reopening of the reassessment proceedings despite the fact that notice under section 148 has been issued beyond three years without there being any books of accounts, evidence or other ... case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reassessment, despite the fact that the reassessment proceedings initiated and consequent reassessment order passed by A0 are bad in the eye of law as the information on the basis of which notice under Section

Seema Goel, Delhi vs. CIT A, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reopening of the reassessment proceedings despite the fact that notice under section 148 has been issued beyond three years without there being any books of accounts, evidence or other ... case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reassessment, despite the fact that the reassessment proceedings initiated and consequent reassessment order passed by A0 are bad in the eye of law as the information on the basis of which notice under Section

Delfin Finance P.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 1997-98 is allowed

ITA 2958/DEL/2019[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

made the addition due to non clarity of act at that time. Also the same has been confirmed during the course of reassessment proceedings Relevant provisions of the guidance note on accounting for lease, revised in 1995, is as under. Accounting for leases in the Books of a lessor Finance

Delfin Finance P.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 1997-98 is allowed

ITA 2957/DEL/2019[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

made the addition due to non clarity of act at that time. Also the same has been confirmed during the course of reassessment proceedings Relevant provisions of the guidance note on accounting for lease, revised in 1995, is as under. Accounting for leases in the Books of a lessor Finance

Lilavantiben Gordhanbhai Padariya, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 372/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 372/Rjt/ 2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Lilavantiben Gordhanbhai Padariya Vs. Ito, Wd – 1(1)(3), Rajkot Vrajdham, Shardanagar Main Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Mabdi Road, Rajkot – 360001 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgpp7067E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 09.09.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 04.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Upholding Validity Of Assessment U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. 2 The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Confirming Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs. 1,11,13,196/- By Way Of Alleged Difference Between Sales As Per Annual Vat Return & Sales As Per Audited Accounts By Failing To Appreciate That The Alleged Difference Was Duly Reconciled & Explained.

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

income at Rs. 9,16,220/- wherein minor addition of Rs 20,459/- was made in the returned income. 4. Subsequently, the AO initiated reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 21.03.2017 of the Act. The appellant on 26.04 2017 requested to treat ... response to impugned notice issued u/s.148 dated 21.03.2017 of the Act. The appellant also requested to provide the copy of reasons recorded for initiating reassessment proceedings by AO. 4.1 Thereafter, the Ld. AO reopened the completed assessment with a view that the income has escaped assessment, since, net figure

Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, Bhagur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1767/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1767/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, V The Income Tax Officer, 21, Main Road, Bhagur, S. Ward-1(1), Nashik. Nashik - 422502. Pan: Aprpg4907J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 21.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & Without Prejudice To Other Grounds, Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Passing A

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, without complying with the various jurisdictional preconditions and statutory safeguards under Income Tax Act, rendering the reassessment proceedings bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice ... High Court in case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd 464 ITR 430 as mandatory jurisdictional 2 ITA No.1767/PUN/2025 [A] pre-condition and therefore, the impugned reassessment proceedings and the consequential reassessment order may please be quashed 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Varahala Sobha Rani, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sangareddy

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

ITA 789/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

income for the year under consideration. Consequently, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee did not respond to the statutory notices issued by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 142(1) dated

Megnanapuram Paccs, Tiruchendur vs. PCIT, Madurai

ITA 895/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:895/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Megnanapuram Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society 4/40, Megnanapuram Tiruchendur Road, Tiruchendur Thoothukudi – 628 210. [Pan: Aabam-9847-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pcit Vs. Madurai - I (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pcit, Madurai - 1, For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Vide Order Dated 17.03.2025. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Raymix Concrete India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2770/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mrs. Lekha, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 37

preceding financial year, amounting to Rs.3,47,26,003/-. Subsequently, after the lapse of 4 years from the end of the AY 2012-13, reassessment proceedings were initiated u/s.147 of the Act after recording the reasons, by issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act on 25.03.2019. In response, the assessee ... assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment as per law, as the AO erred in initiating reassessment proceedings on the same set of facts which were available to the AO at the time of original assessment proceedings. 5. The preliminary issue raised

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed on merits the various legal contentions in the C

ITA 2242/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Nikhil
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 250

basis of any independent opinion formed by AO and therefore the assessment is reopened on borrowed satisfaction leading to entire reassessment proceedings being bad in law; No approval obtained from PCIT for reopening assessment: 5. erred in re-opening the assessment proceedings after seeking sanction of Income- Tax Officer (Tech ... Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, instead of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 himself as reassessment proceedings were initiated after 4 years and thereby violating the provisions of Section 151 of the Act and thus, leading to entire reassessment proceedings bad in law; 2. The assessee

Santosh Rani Legal Heir of Late Sh Parveen Kalyan, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4770/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Santosh Rani Vs Ito, Legal Heir Of Late Shri Parveen Ward-1, Karnal, Kalyan, Krishna Nagar, Gamri, Haryana-132001. Thanesar, Distt.-Kurukshetra, Haryana-136118. Pan-Awhpr4944D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Suresh K.Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

filed by the assessee is reproduced as under:- Merits of the additional Grounds “In the above grounds, the appellant has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings on the following counts: A. Non-Application of Mind The reason for re-opening is for bringing to tax the escaped income of Rs.1.16.20 ... authorities involved right from the authority recording reason and authority providing sanction u/s 151 of IT Act which resulted in quashing of reassessment proceedings and consequent order. Reliance is also placed in the following decisions:  Best Cybercity India P Ltd vs ITO WP(C) 12360/2018 (Del) dt: 21.05.2019 in para

ITO, Ward-30(4), New Delhi vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 4400/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Ward-30(4), New Delhi. Mehta, E-52, Raheja Atlantis, Sector-31, Nh-8, Gurgoan, Haryana-122002. Pan: Akspm 6239M Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 180/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 4400/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta, Vs Income Tax Officer, E-52, Raheja Atlantis, Sector- Ward-30(4), New Delhi. 31, Nh-8, Gurgoan, Haryana-122002. Pan: Akspm 6239M Cross Objector Respondent Assessee Represented By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Pawan Garg, Adv.; & Ms. Ishika Dua, Ca Department Represented By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025

Section 143(3)Section 147

from their own source to the Assessee Firm and in the absence of no plausible explanation furnished by the partners the reassessment proceedings in their hands are being initiated separately for bringing the said amount to tax’. It is brought to our notice that the said reassessment proceedings

Arun Duggal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3075/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Arun Duggal, Vs Dcit, 3E-42, Nit, Faridabad, Central Circle-1, Haryana-121001. Faridabad. Pan-Agupd5708Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Gurgaon [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.617/Cit(A)-3/Ggn/2016-17 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Heard By The Co-Ordinate “E” Bench Of The Tribunal & Was Decided In Terms Of Order Dated 01.04.2022 Wherein Co-Ordinate Bench Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) Bearing No.100/Del/2022 U/S 254(2) Of The Act. The Co-Ordinate Bench Vide Its Order Dated 09.04.2025 Has Decided The M.A. Filed By Assessee Wherein Order Of Co-Ordinate Bench Dated 04.01.2022 Is Recalled For The Limited Purposes Of Adjudication Of Three Grounds Of Appeal Taken In The Original Form 36. These Grounds Of Appeal Are Bearing Nos.1.2, 1.8 & 5. The Relevant Observations Of The Co-Ordinate Bench In Para 16 Of The Order Of Ma Are As Under:-

Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 254(2)Section 68

technical reasons, and later notice was issued and assessments were taken up afresh-After considering submissions of assessee and documents produced in reassessment proceedings, AO added back a sum of Rs.1,35,00,000/- - CIT(A) held against assessee an legality of reassessment notice but allowed assessee's appeal

Musaddilal Mansaram Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 160/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 153CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

assessment year. As per amended Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, such action is time-barred. It is therefore prayed that the reassessment proceedings be quashed. 5. The assessment proceedings initiated via notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 (issued on 01.04.2021) is illegal, as no prior approval was obtained ... aforesaid terms. No costs. 8. In backdrop of aforesaid submission, it was the prayer by Ld. AR that since in the present case the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are initiated on the basis of material pertaining to / information relates to the assessee gathered during the course

Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur vs. Musaddilal Mansaram Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 153/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 153CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

assessment year. As per amended Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, such action is time-barred. It is therefore prayed that the reassessment proceedings be quashed. 5. The assessment proceedings initiated via notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 (issued on 01.04.2021) is illegal, as no prior approval was obtained ... aforesaid terms. No costs. 8. In backdrop of aforesaid submission, it was the prayer by Ld. AR that since in the present case the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are initiated on the basis of material pertaining to / information relates to the assessee gathered during the course

Mithilesh Jagdeo Singh Pawar, Amravati vs. ITO Ward-5, Amravati

ITA 70/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Mithilesh Jagdeo Singh Ito Ward-5 Pawar, Besides Dps, Vs. Ghatladki, Chandur Bazar, Saturna Road, Maharashtra - 444720. Maharashtra - 444605. Pan: Bpfpp6167L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Mrudul Bhusari, Ld. Adv {Ld. Amicus Curie} Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry:

For Appellant: Ms. Mrudul Bhusari, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(40)Section 250Section 69A

this Court is of the considered view that the issue, which has already been examined in original assessment proceedings, cannot be reopened in the reassessment proceedings and thus the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are unsustainable which would entail the assessment order passed in consequence thereof as invalid

Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

service of notice before the last date envisaged under sec. 149 for such purpose, the AO could not have proceeded further with the reassessment proceedings. Reassessment proceedings as also subsequent recovery of tax are quashed and set aside. Mrs. ShubhashriPanickerVs. CIT (2018) 166 DTR 1 (Raj.) (HC) Notice under ... section 34 of the 1922 Act (headnote): The notice prescribed by section 34 of the Income-tax Act for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings is not a mere procedural requirement; the service of the prescribed notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment

Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 771/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

service of notice before the last date envisaged under sec. 149 for such purpose, the AO could not have proceeded further with the reassessment proceedings. Reassessment proceedings as also subsequent recovery of tax are quashed and set aside. Mrs. ShubhashriPanickerVs. CIT (2018) 166 DTR 1 (Raj.) (HC) Notice under ... section 34 of the 1922 Act (headnote): The notice prescribed by section 34 of the Income-tax Act for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings is not a mere procedural requirement; the service of the prescribed notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment