“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

K. Rathinam, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-2(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 360/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:360/Chny/2025 धनधाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 K. Rathinam, Income Tax Officer, 9, S N Layout, Vs. Non Corporate Ward - 2(4), Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 025. [Pan: Adspr-4055-P] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. A. Suraj Nahar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl.C.I.T

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

assessee neither filed the return of income in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act nor filed any submissions during the reassessment proceedings. Hence, an exparte order u/s.144 of the Act dated 24.12.2019 was passed by the AO by rejecting the :-3-: ITA. No.:360/Chny/2025 income declared under

Prashant Patel, Vadodara vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Aayakar Bhavan, Baroda (Vadodara)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 354/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Which Has Resulted In Passing Exparte Order.

Section 147Section 148

taxation. Since the assessee has not filed any Return of Income, the assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. During reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted partial details. Therefore the Assessing Officer made the difference in value of the land

Yogesh Mafatlal Bhansali, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 740/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Yogesh Mafatlal Bhansali Ito, Ward-5(3)(1) 101, Shakuntal Appt Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Cn Vidhyalaya Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. Pan : Aarpb 6394 H (Appellant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2025

For Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 64

Therefore, the AO was not justified in making the impugned addition in the hands of the assessee viz. Varun’s father and the entire reassessment proceedings are liable to quashed. Both the lower authorities are not correct in observing the details of the Return of Income of the mother ... case of the assessee and made addition of Rs.44,66,666/- under section 56(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee categorically explained that the minor son’s income was clubbed with the return of income filed as per clause (a) of Explanation

Mr Bhupendra Kantilal Upadhyaya, Pune vs. ITO Ward -2(3), Pune

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

ITA 1219/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1219/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhupendra Kantilal Upadhyaya, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Flat No. B 303, Plot No.9/1, Pune Ramnagar Colony, Bavdhan, Pune 411 021, Maharashtra Pan : Aaapu3638C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Meshram

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. 2. On perusal of the grounds, we notice that apart from raising the grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings, and the additions made u/s.68 of the Act on account of bogus long term capital gains of Rs.10,80,352/- from sale of Equity

M/S Abhman Distributor Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1410/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT [2018] in Special C.A. No. 21999 of 2017, wherein the Hon'ble Court has upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings reopened on information received from Investigation Wing and has further upheld the addition made u/s 68 of the Act and the appeal

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jovial Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5025/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

filed its return of income on 23/04/2021, declaring a loss of INR 9,83,655. In response to the statutory notice issued during the reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that as a NBFC it had invested in the debentures of Turnaround Consultants Private Limited and during the year under consideration ... same, which has been wrongly treated as an accommodation entry transaction in the form of bogus unsecured loans. We find that during the reassessment proceedings, statutory notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee, inter-alia, seeking information to verify the genuineness of the transaction

Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of Partner of M/S. Kesariyaji Filling Station, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 67/JODH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

Accordingly, a notice under section 148 dated 08.03.2018 was issued in the name of non-existent firm and not properly served thereon. The said reassessment proceeding was based on ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur report issued after survey u/s 133A on dated 03.12.2016. The assessing officer without rejecting an objection ... assessing officer has opted to not to pass any speaking order for determination of legal representatives of the deceased partners of firm and continued reassessment proceeding in gross violation of provisions of section 189(3) of the Act and principle of natural justice. 1.16 The enclosed notice

Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of Partner of M/S. Kesariyaji Filling Station, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 66/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of Partner of M/S. Kesariyaji Filling Station, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 65/JODH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of Partner of M/S. Kesariyaji Filling Station, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 64/JODH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of Partner of M/S. Kesariyaji Filling Station, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 63/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

Vinod Kumar Jangir, Jhunjhunu vs. Dct, Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

Appeal is allowed and the impugned assessment

ITA 779/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarmr. Vinod Kumar Jangir, C/O. Yashi Super Market, Vishwakarma Complex, Gandhi Chowk, Distt. Jhunjhunu -333001 Pan No. Arzpj 7960G ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. R. S. Poonia, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 139(4)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

authority D. Notice is issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO is violation of CBDT Notification No. 18/2022, dated 29.03.2022. Therefore, the reassessment proceeding was initiated by passing an order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act & issued notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is illegal ... holding so is completely agreed with. [Para 7] However, at the same time, the judgments of the several High Courts would result in no reassessment proceedings at all, even if the same are permissible under the Finance Act, 2021 and as per substituted sections 147 to 151. The revenue cannot

Urmila Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarurmila Maheshwari, B-18, New Grain Mandi, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur 302001 Pan No. Accpm 1441R ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may be please be granted by quashing the entire reassessment proceedings initiated by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A)/NFAC. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case ... /NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may be please be granted by quashing the entire reassessment proceedings initiated by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A)/NFAC. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case

Jai Jalaram Projects Private Limited, Godhra vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Godhra

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

ITA 972/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B P Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming initiation of reassessment proceedings. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming

Shri Atul Srivastava, Agra vs. PCIT-1, Agra

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 57/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

escapement of Income as per Reason to Believe recorded by A.O. then no other matter can be subject to examination / verification in reassessment proceedings. Thus the Pr. CIT has erred in imitating proceedings U/S 263. 2 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 5. That the Asstt. Order dated ... section 263 of the Act. He further contended that there is no bar on the Assessing Officer for exploring other issues in reassessment proceedings other than for which the reassessment was resorted to. 12. We have heard the contentions of both the parties and carefully gone through the records

Smt. Sarika Srivastava, Agra vs. PCIT-1, Agra

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 56/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Shri Navinchandra N. Patel, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 869/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dzouza, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(2)Section 69

before the Assessing Officer. There was no new evidence or information which was hitherto not available before the Assessing Officer for reopening the case. Reassessment proceedings, initiated beyond a period of four Shri Navinchandra N Patel Vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 13– years and mere change of opinion ... dated 23.01.2015. 12. From the above, we hold that notice issued u/s. 148 for re- opening of assessment is bad in law and entire reassessment proceedings need to be quashed. Reliance is being placed on the following judgments:- i. CIT Vs. M/s. Kelvinator Of India

Dhavalkumar Dhulappa Gat, Bangalore vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, New Delhi

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

ITA 2243/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 54

reason stated is that the appellant has not furnished written submissions or evidence. The grounds of appeal furnished were not examined. 3. During the reassessment proceedings, the AU had reproduced the timeline of property transactions entered by the appellant. It is evident that the AU has systematically examined the claim ... resident since the year 2015 and has been employed with MNE's based out of the USA and South Korea. For AY 2014-15, reassessment proceedings were initiated u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the "Act") and accordingly, statutory notice(s) were issued and served upon the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(1), Kolkata vs. Sendoz Commercials Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 28/KOL/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.28/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata ………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Sendoz Commercials Pvt. Ltd…………..……...........……........……...…..…..Respondent 644, Marshall House, 25, Strand Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aagcs5174E] C.O. No.12/Kol/2025 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.28/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sendoz Commercials Pvt. Ltd …………..………….………………..….…..Cross-Objector 644, Marshall House, 25, Strand Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aagcs5174E] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata.............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tulsyan, Fca & Deepak Mudhra, Aca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 30, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal & The Assessee Has Filed The Corresponding Cross-Objection Against The Same Order Dated 27.08.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 37 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Revenue Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case.

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

raised by the assessee and proceed with the reassessment after furnishing notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made substantial payment to M/s Tanishi Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer sought explanation regarding the identity

J Ray Mcdermott Engineering Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2016/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on a mere change of opinion and has not satisfied the necessary ingredients for initiating reassessment proceedings u/s.148 of the Act. Hence, we accept the contention of the Ld.AR on the legal issue that the reopening of assessment is invalid and quash the reassessment