← 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

Gordhanbhai L Moradia, Surat vs. ITO Ward 1(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 375/SRT/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.375/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम/ Gordhanbhai L Moradia The Ito V/S. 401, Krishna Vatika Society Ward-1(3)(2) City Light Road Surat – 395 001 Surat – 395 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ablpm 2077 K (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Merely For A Delay Of 2 Days, That Too Without Affording A Single Opportunity Of Requesting For Condonation Of Delay. Gordhanbhai I. Moradia Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Samir Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54B

case of M/s. Shrushti Corporation passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and thus, not applying his mind for initiating reassessment proceedings as required u/s. 147 of the Act. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred

Aman Gupta, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Ltu Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 2565/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2565/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Aman Gupta, The Deputy Commissioner A-1, Vrindavan Enclave, Vs. Of Income Tax, 189, Lloyds Road, Circle 1, Gopalapuram, Ltu, Chennai – 600 086. Chennai. Pan: Adzpa 0417D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Tharish, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri V. Tharish, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 147ASection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

related issues. The Revenue most respectfully submits that the additional grounds are inadmissible, belated. contrary to settled procedure, and wholly without merit. The reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022 are valid ab initio and were carried out in strict compliance with the binding directions ... ADDITIONAL GROUNDS (Grounds 4, 8, 9). 1. The additional grounds raising jurisdictional objections were never raised before the Assessing Officer during the entire reassessment proceedings or before the Id. CIT(A) during the first appellate stage, despite multiple opportunities (including detailed show-cause notices and personal hearings). 2. These grounds