← 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

Venugopal Reddy Gelivi, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

ITA 393/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'ए' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. B.Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 56/HYD/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

link between the reasons recorded and income escaping assessment and further failed to note that the entire 3 ITA.No.1865/Hyd./2019 & ITA.No.56/Hyd./2020 reassessment proceedings was after a period of four years and failed to note that there was no omission or failure on the part of the appellant

Byrraju Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1865/HYD/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

link between the reasons recorded and income escaping assessment and further failed to note that the entire 3 ITA.No.1865/Hyd./2019 & ITA.No.56/Hyd./2020 reassessment proceedings was after a period of four years and failed to note that there was no omission or failure on the part of the appellant

DCIT, Central Circle, 1-(4), Kolkata vs. Kkalpana Industries India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2589/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2589/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 4Th Floor, Room No.3, New Kolkata B.K.Market, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 10.07.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Shri Pankaj Pandey, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 79 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, Delay Of 79 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Dr That The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Originally Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was Reopened By Issuing Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Dated

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2017 was invalid. The Assessing Officer had treated the amalgamation as technical dissolution and had continued with the reassessment proceedings in the hands of M/s Kkalpana Industries India Limited by holding that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act in the name of erstwhile ... case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., reported in 416 ITR 613, annulled the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and had quashed the reassessment proceedings. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored

Shebani Dhiren Gala, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3337/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Shebanidhiren Gala Ito, Ward-31(2)(1), Mumbai 15/2, Vithalkunj, Vp Road, Andheri Vs West, Mumbai-400058. [Pan No. Alxpg6008J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 147Section 250Section 254(1)Section 64Section 69A

fact by not appreciating the fact that it is a settled principle of law that no addition can be sustained in reassessment proceedings unless it is based on the specific reasons recorded for reopening. Additions beyond the scope of such reasons are void ab initio and liable to be quashed

Mr. Anil Narpatlal Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1921/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for. 4. THE INITIATION AND COMPLETION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS BAD IN LAW AND ILLEGAL 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Income tax Officer Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai ... initiating the reassessment proceeding and framing the assessment of the Appellant by invoking the provisions of section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 4.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that: (i) The case of the Appellant did not fall within

Mr. Anil Narpatlal Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward -19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1920/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for. 4. THE INITIATION AND COMPLETION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS BAD IN LAW AND ILLEGAL 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Income tax Officer Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai ... initiating the reassessment proceeding and framing the assessment of the Appellant by invoking the provisions of section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 4.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that: (i) The case of the Appellant did not fall within

Abdulzameer Hakim Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1366/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

27/07/2022 for the assessment year 2013-14 is void ab initio and bad in law. Therefore, the same is quashed. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w. section 144 of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14 is also quashed. ITAs No.1365 ... 27/07/2022 for the assessment year 2014- 15 is void ab initio and bad in law. Therefore, the same is quashed. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w. section 144 of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15 is also quashed. Accordingly

Abdulzameer Hakim Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1365/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

27/07/2022 for the assessment year 2013-14 is void ab initio and bad in law. Therefore, the same is quashed. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w. section 144 of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14 is also quashed. ITAs No.1365 ... 27/07/2022 for the assessment year 2014- 15 is void ab initio and bad in law. Therefore, the same is quashed. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w. section 144 of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15 is also quashed. Accordingly

DCIT, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

signed either manually or digitally and therefore, in absence of valid signature, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and the reassessment proceedings carried out is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed written submission in respect of this ground of appeal and the same ... decision of any other High Court on that point. (Page 15 to 16 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para __ on page 16) Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law.” 8. The Ld. DR contended that the approval u/s.151 of the Act is correctly granted and the approval

DCIT CC 5-1, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

signed either manually or digitally and therefore, in absence of valid signature, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and the reassessment proceedings carried out is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed written submission in respect of this ground of appeal and the same ... decision of any other High Court on that point. (Page 15 to 16 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para __ on page 16) Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law.” 8. The Ld. DR contended that the approval u/s.151 of the Act is correctly granted and the approval

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4590/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

signed either manually or digitally and therefore, in absence of valid signature, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and the reassessment proceedings carried out is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed written submission in respect of this ground of appeal and the same ... decision of any other High Court on that point. (Page 15 to 16 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para __ on page 16) Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law." 8. The Ld. DR contended that the approval u/s.151 of the Act is correctly granted and the approval

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is

ITA 4589/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain&

Section 250Section 69A

signed either manually or digitally and therefore, in absence of valid signature, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and the reassessment proceedings carried out is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed written submission in respect of this ground of appeal and the same ... decision of any other High Court on that point. (Page 15 to 16 of Paper Book - II; Relevant para _ on page 16) Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law.” 8. The Ld. DR contended that the approval u/s.151 of the Act is correctly granted and the approval

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is

ITA 4588/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain&

Section 250Section 69A

signed either manually or digitally and therefore, in absence of valid signature, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and the reassessment proceedings carried out is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed written submission in respect of this ground of appeal and the same ... decision of any other High Court on that point. (Page 15 to 16 of Paper Book - II; Relevant para _ on page 16) Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law.” 8. The Ld. DR contended that the approval u/s.151 of the Act is correctly granted and the approval

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4587/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

signed either manually or digitally and therefore, in absence of valid signature, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and the reassessment proceedings carried out is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed written submission in respect of this ground of appeal and the same ... decision of any other High Court on that point. (Page 15 to 16 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para __ on page 16) Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law.” 8. The Ld. DR contended that the approval u/s.151 of the Act is correctly granted and the approval

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4585/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

signed either manually or digitally and therefore, in absence of valid signature, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and the reassessment proceedings carried out is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed written submission in respect of this ground of appeal and the same ... decision of any other High Court on that point. (Page 15 to 16 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para __ on page 16) Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law.” 8. The Ld. DR contended that the approval u/s.151 of the Act is correctly granted and the approval

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4153/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

signed either manually or digitally and therefore, in absence of valid signature, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and the reassessment proceedings carried out is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed written submission in respect of this ground of appeal and the same ... decision of any other High Court on that point. (Page 15 to 16 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para __ on page 16) Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law.” 8. The Ld. DR contended that the approval u/s.151 of the Act is correctly granted and the approval

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai

ITA 4152/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

signed either manually or digitally and therefore, in absence of valid signature, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and the reassessment proceedings carried out is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed written submission in respect of this ground of appeal and the same ... decision of any other High Court on that point. (Page 15 to 16 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para __ on page 16) Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law.” 8. The Ld. DR contended that the approval u/s.151 of the Act is correctly granted and the approval

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4151/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

signed either manually or digitally and therefore, in absence of valid signature, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and the reassessment proceedings carried out is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed written submission in respect of this ground of appeal and the same ... decision of any other High Court on that point. (Page 15 to 16 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para __ on page 16) Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law.” 8. The Ld. DR contended that the approval u/s.151 of the Act is correctly granted and the approval

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

signed either manually or digitally and therefore, in absence of valid signature, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and the reassessment proceedings carried out is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed written submission in respect of this ground of appeal and the same ... decision of any other High Court on that point. (Page 15 to 16 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para __ on page 16) Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law.” 8. The Ld. DR contended that the approval u/s.151 of the Act is correctly granted and the approval