“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

Late. Sri. Madaiah Manjunath L/H by Sri Sachidananda Swamy & Ors., Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(5), Benglauru

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

ITA 76/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K. Varaprasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 159Section 292B

necessary steps in the matter. 3. That a dead individual is not a person in the eye of law and hence the assessment or reassessment proceedings or subsequent proceeding taken in his name is invalid. The Department must bring the legal representatives on record and continue the proceedings against them ... have remanded the matter with a direction to reprocess the same after bringing the Legal Representatives on record. 4. That, framing assessment or reassessment proceedings on a non- existent person is a jurisdictional defect and the same cannot be cured under Section 292B of the Act. Hence, in the absence

Shri Amit Jayantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2950/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69C

Appellant also filed confirmation from party M/s. Tanman Jewels P. Ltd. and address of Mumbai was duly given and during reassessment proceedings, also requested the AO that the party can be produced, if required, however the request was turned down; d. AO made addition applying sec.69C rws 115BBE

Amrit Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1657/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 69C

principles of natural justice for affording an opportunity to the appellant to cross examine the alleged evidences collated and relied upon in the reassessment proceedings.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership Firm. The assessee had filed its return of income

Amrit Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1656/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 69C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre, New Delhi vs. Harish Kumar, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4676/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Harish Kumar Vs. Nfac, Delhi 5/21, Shanti Niketan, Chankaya Puri, South West Delhi, New Delhi – 21 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Harish Kumar, Room No. 1505, 15Th Floor, E-2 1/7, West Patel Nagar Tower, Dr. Sp Mukherjee New Delhi – 8 Civic Centre, New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Ca & Sh. Sumaksh Mahajan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.8.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT(DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 3Section 94(7)

income for AY 2015-16 on 17.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 11,86,80,770/-. Subsequently, the case was taken up for reassessment proceedings based on the information received under Risk Management Strategy as formulated by the CBDT. Notice u/s. 148 dated 23.06.2021 was issued after obtaining the prior ... Section 149, expired on 31.03.2022. Therefore, the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 29.07.2022 is barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings culminating in the order under section 147 r.w.s. Section 144B of the Act are rendered void ab initio, having been initiated beyond the prescribed

Harish Kumar, Delhi vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4602/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT(DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 3Section 94(7)

Krishan Kumar Makrania Pro. M/S. Makrania Oil Mill, Bhiwani vs. DCIT Central Circle-I, Gurgaon

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3214/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & AnkitFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

proceedings on this particular count that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act have not been issued and served upon the assessee and the reassessment proceedings finalized u/s. 148 of the Act, is therefore, held to be invalid. 5. The brief facts leading to the case is this, that ... order Ld. CIT(A) categorically admitted that no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Ld. AO in the reassessment proceedings. In fact, the Ld. CIT(A) thereafter, also stated that since no return of income has been filed by the assessee, there was no requirement

Dushyant Bhati, Noida vs. PCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed

ITA 1914/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri SomilFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop CIT (DR)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154BSection 263

jurisdiction and issue of income under the head of ‘capital gain’ on sale of immoveable property have been examined and accepted during course of reassessment proceedings. Ld. PCIT erred in holding that Ld. AO had failed to examine the issue which makes the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest ... bring to tax, income under the head of ‘capital gain’. The issue of capital gain on sale of land was extensively enquired into during reassessment proceedings. The reasons recorded for bringing to tax capital gain are at page nos. 5 to 7 of the paper books. Copy of notice under

Prabhat Kumar, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax. 1(1)(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1666/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Prabhat Kumar, Vs Acit, 2-A, Prem Shanti Kunj, Int. Tax 1(1)(1), 2-Club Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. Delhi – 110 054. Pan: Aacpk2240A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessees Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2024 Passed By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, It Comes Up That Amongst Other Grounds On Merits & Also Legal Grounds, The Assessee Has Raised Grounds No.2 & 3 As Follows:- “2. That Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Read With Section 148 Of The Act For The Instant Assessment Year Are Barred By Limitation & Both The Initiation Of Proceedings & Assumption Of Jurisdiction To Frame Order Of Assessment & Deserves To Be Quashed As Such. 3. That Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act & Assumption Of Jurisdiction To Frame Assessment U/S 147/144C(13) Of The Act Are Without Satisfying The Statutory Preconditions Provided In The Act & Therefore Without Jurisdiction & Deserve To Be Quashed As Such.”

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 151

noted above, by virtue of TOLA, the AO had period of twenty-nine days limitation left on the date of commencement of the reassessment proceedings, which began on 01.06.2021, to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order

DCIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Al Ammar Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2180/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44ASection 80I

I.T.A. No. 2180/Del/2023 & CO No.116/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "A" NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA

Subhash Chand, Karnal vs. ITO Ward - 4, Karnal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 655/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 154(7)Section 80

time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has primarily argued on ground no. 1 to 4 raising legal question that the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is bad as the same are based on change of opinion and also by way of an oral additional ground

Naveen Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-26(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 592/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153C

instant case by not taking approval u/s 151 of the Act from the competent authority in the manner known to law. Accordingly, the entire reassessment proceedings are hereby quashed. Hence, one of the legal grounds in the Rule 27 Petition challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction ... clearly indicates that it is only mechanical approval and following the aforesaid decision, we are inclined to quash the reassessment proceedings which are against the provisions of section 151 of the Act. 16. Further ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that no reasons were supplied to the assessee which

Index Securities & Research Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT CC-18, New Delhi

ITA 7032/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs M/S Index Security & Research Pvt. Central Circle-18, Ltd., New Delhi. 287, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. Pan: Aaaci2919K Co No.126/Del/2023 (Ita No.1957/Del/2019) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment No.2010-11 M/S Index Security & Research Vs. Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-18, 287, Tarun Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. Pan: Aaaci2919K

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in upholding the initiation of the reassessment proceedings failing to appreciate that the notice under section 148 of the Act had been issued by the learned Assessing Officer without satisfying the statutory preconditions ... envisaged under section 147 of the Act, and hence initiation of the reassessment proceedings is bad in law. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that reasons to believe are justiciable and for the reopening

ACIT Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Index Securities & Research Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1957/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sea Point Trading & Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1731/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judical Member & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Sea Point Trading & Income Tax, Builders Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-2, Vs. B-4/43, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. Pan: Aabcs0741C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Ld. Cit(A), In Short], Dt. 29.01.2026 In Appeal No. 16/2015-16 For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short). 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Laws In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,35,00,000/- Made By Ao On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act Received From M/S Manan Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.”

Section 127Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

order, the assessee had filed the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 29.01.2016 has allowed the appeal by holding that reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is not sustainable and, further on merits and deleted the addition of rs.6,35,00,000/-. Against such order ... 545/2015) Delhi High Court order dated 08.10.2015 it has been held that 'mere information received from DDIT(Inv) cannot constitute valid reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings in the absence of anything to show that A.O. had independently applied his mind to arrive at a belief that the income had escaped

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Belisma Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1728/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs M/S. Belisma Buildcon Central Circle-2, Pvt.Ltd.,77, Ss House, Sector-44, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122003. Pan-Aadcb9647C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

545/2015) Delhi High Court order dated 08.10.2015 it has been held that "mere information received from DDIT(Inv) cannot constitute valid reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings in the absence of anything to show that A.O. had independently applied his mind to arrive at a belief that the income had escaped

Chainaram, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 724/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Blechainaram V/P Doli Tehsil Luni, Jodhpur - 342001. Pan No Biкpr9270C Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Ito, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur. Shri Anil Bhansali, Advocate. Shri Karni Dan, Addl. Cit (Sr. D.R.) 21.05.2025. 26.06.2025. 17

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

denovo after granting adequate opportunity of being heard and considering the documentary evidence filed on record and to be filed during the course of reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the AO to pass de novo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being

Chainaram, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 723/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

Chainaram, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 722/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

M/S. Super Shiv Shakti Minchem Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3, Bhilwara

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 21/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. D.R)

Section 147Section 148Section 6Section 68Section 69C

record .Upon careful consideration of the rival contentions and the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. The reasons recorded by the AO were based on specific, credible, and tangible material, including the statement of an identified entry operator, corroborated