“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-10, Chennai vs. Arunchalam Veeraiah, Chennai

In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed and allow the cross objection

ITA 2320/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 153Section 69A

another facet and according to the respondent / assessee, the issuance of notice by impermissible method, if accepted, would lead to the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings continued thereafter. The notice under Section 148 of the Act on the contrary was again attempted to be served through notice server / messenger, which ... discharge that onus. (v) The mere fact that an Assessee or some other person on his behalf not duly authorised participated in the reassessment proceedings after coming to know of it will not constitute a waiver of the requirement of effecting proper service of notice on the Assessee under Section

Russell Adrian Rodrigues, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No98/Mum/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Russel Adrian Rodrigues, Vs. Ito, Ward-23(3)(1), 101, Diiago, “B” Sherly Ranjan Mumbai Road, Bandra West, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Adwpr 7259 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Impugned Order Dated 28/12/2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: – 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal On Account Of Non-Compliance Of Section 249(4)(A) & 249(4)(B) Of The It Act., 1961 Completely Disregarding The Fact That Assessee Has Filed The Return & Paid The Due Tax Thereon As Mentioned In The Column 8.1 Of The Appeal Form No. 35. The Appellant Therefore Prays To Remand Back The Matter To Hon. Cit(A) For A Fresh Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

without complying with the jurisdictional and mandatory requirements and conditions envisaged in section 147/148/151 of the IT Act, 1961 and therefore the entire Reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act are liable to be quashed as null and void And bad in law. 4. The appellant craves the leave

Magestic Premises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-2, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partially allowed

ITA 1540/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Pakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250Section 69ASection 69C

return of income on 30/04/2019. After receipt of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, the assessee filed its detailed objections against the reassessment proceedings, which were disposed of. During the assessment proceedings, notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued to Aditi Gems Private ... reopening the assessment, forming part of the paper book from pages 23-24, it is ostensible that the only basis for initiating the reassessment proceedings was the information received from the DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad, that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry transaction of unsecured loans

Sunita Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3400/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbkr Capital Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Pr. Cit, 10174/1A, Gurudwara Delhi-1 Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm2405J

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263Section 68

Garments Private Limited, Saabi Mining Private Limited and Archways Biofuel Private Limited alleged to be controlled by one Shri Joginder Pal Gupta. Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings stood completed on the assessee vide order dated 27- 3-2022 under section 147 of the Act after making addition

M/S. Rhc Holding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1871/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

Shri Rajendra Jain and Shri Surendra Jain whereas no infirmity was found in the invoices, confirmations, audited financials, bank statements, ledgers etc. 20. The reassessment proceedings were initiated based on the statement of Shri Surendra Jain and Shri Rajendra Jain, and the additions in all the years under appeal were

Puneet Singhvi, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kota

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

ITA 1294/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

consideration Rs. 30,56,063/-, in determining income chargeable to tax under the head Capital Gains. Further, the action of the AO in initiating reassessment proceeding by issuing notice u/s 148, is confirmed as it is apparent that the appellant has not disclosed in his Retum of Income ... recourse to the provisions under section 148 and 143 (2) of the Income-tax Act.” In view of these legal and factual submissions, the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 and the notice u/s 148 deserved to be quashed. 2.No adequate opportunity: The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well

Nirmal Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

wherein it has been held as under: “VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF INCOME-CERTIFICATE GRANTED UNDER SCHEME EFFECT-AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF WHICH CERTIFICATE IS GRANTED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF SUCH AMOUNT- NOT VALID INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, S. 147-VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF INCOME SCHEME, 1997-FINANCE ... which is null and void.” Therefore, in light of the submissions made above and case laws cited, it is prayed that the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is against the law and order passed by ld. CIT(A) confirming the action

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. Saudi Telecom Company, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2399/BANG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Mr. Aliasgar Rampurwala, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

March 29, 2016. The Ld. AO further issued certain notices and a show cause notice (dated November 22, 2017) during the course of the reassessment proceedings. Subsequently, the Learned. AO passed an ex-parte assessment order under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act, dated December

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3514/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 115JSection 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 37(1)

assessee reads as under:- “1. Re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act 1.1 The learned Assessing Officer ('AO') erred in invoking reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act even after failing to fulfill conditions as specified for invoking such proceedings under section ... learned AO erred in not taking cognizance of the fact that reassessment proceedings is bad in law as no fresh information/ material is available on record. 1.3. The learned AO erred in law and in facts by revising a considered view taken by the learned AO during original assessment

Sushila Choudhary, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 638/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Katariya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Badgujar, Addl.CIT (Thr. V.C.)

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69A

appeal on the following grounds:- "1. The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the present case in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the same and hence the consequent assessment ... facts of the present case in not disposing off the specific objection of the assessee raised on the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the complete proceedings was in violation of settled judicial precedents and therefore bad in law and Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the same and hence

Sunil Poonamchand Saraf, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 900/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 144BSection 147Section 263

addition which is beyond the scope of Section 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that there was several defects in opening reassessment proceedings of the assessee and after going through assessee’s submission along with assessee’s details, which clearly set out that the assessee

Ratna Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 132/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

unexplained expenditure/ disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act. Therefore, erred in confirming additions made by Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings amounting to Rs.273,02,94,670/-. 5. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that notice u/s 148 is issued on account of a letter from ADIT Kolkata ... assessee company and thereafter assessment order was passed, it was not open for revenue to reopen assessment on same issue and, thus, impugned reassessment proceedings initiated on mere change of opinion was 21 to be set aside. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the reopening of the assessment

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, Kadapa

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 670/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.A.Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR and

Section 132Section 56(1)(vii)

fact that the assessee is the main person in Jain Group, the DDIT (Inv), New Delhi referred the issues to the assessing officer, accordingly reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the assessee. When the above findings were confronted with the assessee during the assessment proceedings, we observe from

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Highlight Commotrade Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 646/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 263Section 68

reopen the assessment before issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In view of this, the very initiation of reassessment proceedings in this case is void ab initio and consequently, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable and the same is also void. Since the base

Vanavil Estate, Chennai vs. PCIT Central, Chennai

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

ITA 926/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh-

Section 133ASection 148Section 263

differential receipts receipts had had escaped escaped assessment assessment for for AYs AYs 2017 2017-18 18 & & 2018 2018-19 respectively. Thereafter, in the reassessment proceedings, the assessee is hereafter, in the reassessment proceedings, the assessee is hereafter, in the reassessment proceedings, the assessee is noted to have disputed

Vanavil Estate, Chennai vs. PCIT(Central), Chennai

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

ITA 925/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh-

Section 133ASection 148Section 263

Navjyot International Private Limied, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3754/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Preetamkumar Turerao, Ld. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

reopening of the case by the Learned Assessing Officer is bad in law as the conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were not fulfilled. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred

Samtel India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 22(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7101/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Cit, Samtel India Limited, Circle-22(1), 501, Copia Corporate Vs. New Delhi. Suites, District Centre Jasola, New Delhi-110025 Pan-Aaacs0390N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri D.C. Garg, Ca Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi (“The Cit(A)” For Short) In Appeal No.32/13-14 Dated 27/01/2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi, Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case In Upholding Action Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening The Assessment Under Samtel India Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 37

after claiming various adjustments. The assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) vide orders dt. 09/12/2009 accepting the income returned by the assessee. Thereafter reassessment proceedings were initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 on 17/02/2012 and the reassessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s ... financial statements. After considering and thoroughly scrutinizing the same, the AO had accepted the returned income. As per the reasons recorded for initiating the reassessment proceedings, it is evident that no fresh and new tangible material was considered by the AO and only based on the material available on records

Jsw Energy (Utkal) Limited (Formerly Known As Ind Barath Energy Utkal Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 539/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Nos.36 & 539/Hyd/2024 5 C.O. No.8/Hyd/2024 such material was brought on record by the Ld. AO, the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act is change of opinion on the part of the Ld. AO and therefore, it is bad in law. 4.1 The alternate argument of the assessee before ... occasion, the assessment of the assessee was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act which was a limited scrutiny and the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act was not the subject matter of the limited scrutiny u/s.143(3) of the Act. It is settled position

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Jsw Energy (Utkal) Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 36/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148