“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

Vinod Kumar Singhal, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1004/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, PR.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263

dated 23.03.2024, regarding unsecured loan received from shell company by the assessee which was not examined by the AO during the course of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act whereas the sole reason for reopening assessment under sections 147/148 of the Act was on the basis of information ... Arrowlinkvintrade Pvt. Ltd., and as per information received from Mukesh Banka was managing the activity of M/s. ArrowlinkVintrade Pvt. Ltd. However, while completing the reassessment proceedings, the AO had not enquired with regard to unsecured loan received during the year. The AO failed to verify the information received from DDIT

Omega Vincom Trading Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5660/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shi Prabhash Shankaromega Vincom Trading Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- 18, Hazira Mansion, 184 Samul Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai 2Nd Room No.420, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Street, Floor, Mumbai 400003 Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Pan : Aaaco7991H Mumbai400051 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

file of the ld. CIT(A). We refrain from expressing any views on the merits of the case to avoid prejudicing the reassessment proceedings. It is imperative that the ld. CIT(A) provides the assessee with a fair and adequate opportunity of being heard during the set aside appeal proceeding ... defence must be admitted and considered by the Ld. CIT(A). Similarly, the assessee is expected to act diligently and cooperate fully during the reassessment proceedings. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.5660/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

ITO, Income Tax Department vs. Ska Techinfra Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stand dismissed on merits, whereas the CO filed by the Assessee stand dismissed being not pressed

ITA 4369/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Sawant, Ld. Sr. A.R

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

bogus purchases are interconnected, hence, for the sake of brevity, we will conjointly decide the same. The AO during the course of the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, has found that the Assessee has entered into non-genuine transaction with M/s. Shree Om Sai Industries ... addition of Rs.1,08,000/- being commission @ 0.54% on the bogus loan, we observe that during the reassessment proceedings on perusing the balance sheet, it was found by the AO that the Assessee had shown un- secured loan of Rs.2,00,00,000/- from M/s. Aneri Fincap Pvt. Ltd. During

Pernia Qureshi Consultancy Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-07, New Delhi

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

ITA 992/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292BSection 45Section 54

notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the Ld AO, a statutory requirement for the Ld AO to assume jurisdiction to carry out the reassessment proceedings, rendering the proceedings bad in law, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 5. That the Ld Assessing Officer has erred in not allowing ... Batra Bhatta Co (Del) and Apex Remedies P Ltd (Guj). iv) The Ld ACIT Circle 2(2)(1) Ghaziabad carried out reassessment proceedings without serving any notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act 1961 on the assessee which is mandatory and not a curable defect u/s 292BB

M/S Modinagar Rolls Ltd., Modinagar vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3455/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Modinagar Rolls Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Major Asha Ram, Tyagi Circle-1, Road, Modinagar Ghaziabad Pan :Aabcm0137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Sh. Rajkumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

grounds in the instant appeal: 1. That the L'd Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and law in sustaining the reassessment proceedings U/S 147 initiated second time beyond four years. She has further failed to appreciate the Jurisdictional High Court's latest view and has bypassed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Bhawani Construction Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1649/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 264Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

without any further quarry as the return for the AY 2009-10 of the applicant company was also accepted by the Department in the reassessment proceedings. There is no dispute that the share applicants audited financial statement since AY 2009-10 and 2012-13 have been filed by the assessee

Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

ITA 160/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69

that all the materials have been culled out from the return of income filed by the assessee and the Annexure thereto. Thus, the impugned reassessment proceedings, having been Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari done with the same set of facts which were available during the regular assessment

Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

ITA 159/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69

Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

ITA 158/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69

Jagdish Parshad Jain, Panipat vs. DCIT Central Circle Karnal, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3300/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

contentions, it is crystal clear that the additional grounds of appeal nos. 1 & 2 are regarding exercise of jurisdiction by non-jurisdictional Ld.AO. Undisputedly, reassessment proceedings were initiated by the ITO, Ward-3, Saharanpur whereas the assessment order under Section 147/143(3) dated 17.03.2015 was passed by the ITO, Ward

Sunil Garg, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

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

ITA 1215/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 69

filed any return hence he formed a belief that the investment of Rs 77 lakh has escaped assessment. 5. In the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has not filed any reply and due to non-response, the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 147 r.w.s ... issuance/service of the 1st notice is concerned, we further 12. find that the assessee has participated in the reassessment proceedings and therefore the provisions of section 292BB of the Act will apply. In Page 6 of 11 ITA No. 1215/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2012-13] Shri Varun Gupta Vs. ITO this context

Sh. Yugal Kishor Agarwal, Agra vs. DCIT, Circle 4(3)(1), Etah

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 57

Thereafter, statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. The assessee participated in the reassessment proceedings, and furnished most of the 2 | P a g e Asst Year: 2012-13 Yugal Kishor Agarwal information and replies during the course of reassessment ... shares. The profit/loss on F&O were offered for taxation. The assessee also drew my attention to the reply dated 16.08.2019 filed during reassessment proceedings(Page 8/PB). My attention was drawn to the re-assessment order and it was submitted that no addition has been made by the AO with

Sh. Satnam Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Mohali

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 334/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 120Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment under section 148 cannot be issued, i.e., no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of the return already filed are not terminated. According to the Revenue ... immaterial whether the order is communicated or not and the only bar to the reassessment proceedings is that proceedings on the return already filed should have been terminated." 282 & 334-Chd-2023 – Satnam Singh, Mohali 6 “A mere glance at this note would show that it could not be said

Sh. Satnam Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Mohali

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 282/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 120Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 451/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Mandir Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3 Gandhinagar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 19/01/2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"] Dated 30/12/2019, Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"].

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 147Section 148

circumstances of the case as well on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in continuing reassessment proceedings even when he has neither proposed any addition in show cause notice nor made any addition on the grounds stated in reasons recorded ... therefore the assessment is not on the basis of reasons of reopening. The AR of the assessee also contended that the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are time-barred and, therefore, invalid. 6. The Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the assessee

DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Microland Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1154/BANG/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jan 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2023-24 Microland Limited 1B, Ecospace, 2Nd Floor Outer Ring Road Dcit Bellandur Circle-4(1)(1) Vs. Bellandur So Bangalore Bangalore Karnataka 560 103

For Appellant: Sri B.K. Manjunath, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80J

ITA No.1154/Bang/2024 CO 28/Bang/2024 Microland Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Tc Tours Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2044/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeetc Tours Limited Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Thomas Cook Building, Dr D N (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Centre (Nfac), Delhi Pan: Aabct5333R Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: ShriHemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270A

imperative that the ld. AO provides the assessee with a fair and adequate opportunity of being heard during the reassessment proceeding. Any evidence or explanation submitted by the assessee 5 TC Tours Limited in her defense must be admitted and considered by the ld. AO, who shall adjudicate the matter ... merits in accordance with the law. Similarly, the assessee is expected to act diligently and cooperate fully during the reassessment proceedings. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.2044/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th day of January

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune vs. The Shetkari Shikshan Mandal, Pune

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

ITA 1182/PUN/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

material available on records. The facts are not in dispute. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and the reassessment proceedings were completed ex-parte by the Ld. AO due to the absence of 7 ITA No.1182/PUN/2024, AY 2016-17 response to the notice

Leman Diversified Fund, Mumbai vs. Asssistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-Circle 3(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2732/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Jariwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 68

assessee raised following identical grounds of appeal for both AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 – “1. The AO had erred in initiating reassessment proceedings without following the procedure prescribed in Section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). The appellant prays that such reassessment proceedings should be treated ... erred in initiating reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 149 of the Act. The appellant prays that such reassessment proceedings should be treated as bad in law. 3. The AO had erred in initiating reassessment proceedings

Leman Diversified Fund, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation) Circle 3(1)(2), Mumabi

ITA 2710/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Jariwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 68