“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

Manek Metal Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-

ITA 4276/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

declaring a total income of INR 6,85,860. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, were initiated in the case of the assessee based on information received from the Sales Tax Department through

Adala Bhanu Rekha, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 583/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adala Bhanu Rekha Vs. Dcit Hyderabad Circle-6(1) [Pan : Accpa8679F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Bg Reddy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri BG Reddy, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

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 to be set aside. 12. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, we find

Damodar Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir. 1(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 19/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.19/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Damodar Distributors Pvt. Ltd....……………………....Appellant 4Th Floor, Room No.401A, 154, Lenin Sarani, Kol-700013. [Pan: Aaccd6184D] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata.…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 05, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.12.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 20, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,665/- For Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer Stated That An Information Was Received From Ddit(Inv.), Unit-4(1), Kolkata Regarding Statement From Various Entry Operators Who Utilised Bogus Entry Operators Including Proprietary/Partnership Concerns Who Deposited Cash & Issued Cheques On Demand Of Its Clients. The Assessee Was Identified As One Of The Beneficiaries. In This Regard, Necessary Approval Was Obtained & Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 30.03.2016. In Response To The Notice U/S 148, The Assessee Filed Its Return 28.04.2016. I.T.A. No.19/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Damodar Distributors Pvt. Ltd

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessment u/s 148 of the Act and the said reasons for reopening were never confronted to the assessee till the completion of the reassessment proceedings in spite of specific request and also there was no comment in the body of the assessment order in this regard. Therefore, we find that

Income Tax Officer, Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. Mahesh K Shavdia HUF, Mumbai

ITA 2214/MUM/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Mahesh K. Shavdia Huf, Room No. 413, 4Th Floor, 27/28, Kailash Niwas No. 2, Tower No. 6, Vs. R.B.Mehta Marg, Vashi Railway Station Ghatkopar (East), Complex, Mumbai Navi Mumbai Pan : Aahhm1877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 148Section 69

Curry Road, Mumbai. However statements given by the Mr. Kailash Agarwal and Mr. Praveen Mishra were retracted subsequently. The AO in the course of reassessment proceedings on the basis of copy of agreement dated 28/06/2013 executed between M/s Nish Developers Pvt. Ltd and Kantilal N. Shavadia, HUF and Mahesh

R R Paints Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1112/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

opinion and that the AO has formed the belief based only on existing material. The ld AR accordingly argued that the initiation of reassessment proceedings in assessee's case is not legally tenable. 6. The ld DR on other hand submitted that the in the approval under section

Income Tax Officer-4(3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan, M K Road vs. Vishal Fashion Private Limited (Earlier Known As M/Raj Ratan Infracon Private Limited), Mumbai

Accordingly the CO of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3893/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Tribunal (NCLT). The reassessment was initiated vide notice under section 148 dated 31.03.2021 and we notice that the assessee post the initiation of the reassessment proceedings, did not communicate the final order of NCLT approving the merger. We further notice that the assessee has filed the return of income ... communicated to the AO since it was only the proposal for merger that was submitted and that too prior to the initiation of the reassessment proceedings. The fact that all the communications including the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was filed in the name of the merged entity

Shreenathji Associates, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 594/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.592, 593 & 594/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014-15 Respectively Shreenathji Associates The Ito बनाम/ Sb-1, Shreeji Avenue, W#Ard-1(2)(4) V/S. 11, Sampatrao Colony Vadodara – 390 007 Jetalpur Road Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abufs 4107 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise From The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 11/05/2023, 30/11/2023 & 02/02/2024 Respectively For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 (Both Under Original & Reassessment Proceedings). Since The Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Common, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], dated 11/05/2023, 30/11/2023 & 02/02/2024 respectively for the Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 (both under original and reassessment proceedings). Since the issue involved in all these appeals is common, they are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

Shreenathji Associates, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 593/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

Shreenathji Associates, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 592/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

Pushpadevi Shivlal Rathi, Jalna vs. ITO Ward-1, Jalna

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

ITA 1995/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1995/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi &For Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 197Section 250Section 69A

CHALLENGE TO REASSESSMENT : 2.1 The Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Jalna ['the Ld. JAO'] has erred in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ['the Act']. 2.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. JAO has initiated the reassessment ... proceedings without fulfilling the preconditions required to initiate the reassessment proceedings u/s.148- 151 of the Act. Further, the Ld. JAO failed to follow the directions as provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of UOI v. Ashish Agrawal- [(2022) 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC)] 2.3 On the facts

Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT, Corp Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N.V.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

Plant & Machinery when assessee could have claimed depreciation on boiler @80% (refer reasons record supra). And the AO enquired about it during reassessment proceedings and asked assessee as to why it claimed only 15% depreciation on the Higher Efficiency Boilers (being energy saving device), when it was eligible for depreciation

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Dharmanath Buildtech and Farms Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5462/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon'Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessment year and the communication of the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment after the period of six years does not render the reassessment proceedings barred by limitation. 5. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that

Chaitalee Sachin Deokar, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, -It -2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2806/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

case of Bhagawati Developer that the assessee has paid on money in cash of Rs. 25,81,875/- to acquire a flat. Therefore reassessment proceedings were initiated and order of assessment was completed at the returned income of Rs. 4,32,400/-. 3. Thereafter, proceedings ... paid by the assessee as per the information, but no other documentary evidence or incriminating documents were forwarded. On the basis of said information reassessment proceedings were initiated, wherein the assessee has strongly denied having paid any ‘on money' or cash payment for the purchase of the residential flat. Ultimately

Manju Madhusudan Dhoot L/H of Late Madhusudan Dhoot, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 1, Ahmednagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1920/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1919 & 1920/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 144Section 250

assessment completed on 18.11.2009. Thereafter, based on the information available with Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2008-09 he again initiated reassessment proceedings within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e., 2007-08. 13. Now proviso to section 147 of the Act prior to the amendment brought ... been claimed in the income-tax return. This information in my considered view was sufficient for the AO to have initiated the reassessment proceedings for the year which has already been assessed u/s.143(3) of the Act since the material information was not disclosed correctly and truly by the assessee

Manju Madhusudan Dhoot, L/H of Late Madhusudan Dhoot, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 1, Ahmednagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1919/PUN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1919 & 1920/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 144Section 250

Anil Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

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

ITA 435/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Prem Lamba, CAFor Respondent: Shri Poojan Rana, Sr. DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

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 challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act is allowed

Anil Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

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

ITA 1413/DEL/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Prem Lamba, CAFor Respondent: Shri Poojan Rana, Sr. DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 516/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 516/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Mirzapur Hardet Haveli Ward-1(4), Mujehri, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepy4744P Assessee By : Sh. M. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 28.11.2019 In Case No. 10339/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Kelvinator India Ltd.2 to support the contention that the reassessment proceeding was a case of change of opinion. Several other grounds were raised touching upon the merits of the matter. 5 Lakhmi Chand Yadav ... learned Tribunal after taking note of the factual position, more particularly, that the addition of Rs. 59,42,709/- which was made in the reassessment proceedings having been deleted by the CIT(A) vide order dated 30.07.2019, the reassessment on the heads which were not part of the reasons recorded

Master Trust Limited, Ludhiana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 334/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

assessee has not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary for the assessment thereby necessitating reopening under section 147 of the Act. 4. The reassessment proceedings u/s 147 were thereafter initiated and notice under section 148 was issued on 30/03/2021 after seeking approval from JCIT Range-1, Ludhiana in terms ... issued calling for the necessary information/ documentation from the assessee to which the assessee filed its submissions but not finding the same acceptable, the reassessment proceeding were completed vide order under section 147 r.w.s. 144B dt. 03/12/2021 wherein the loss of Rs. 3,78,93,875/- was disallowed holding

Bhagwan Raosaheb Damale, Ladsangvi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(9), Aurangabad

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

ITA 1441/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 250Section 69A

mentioned thereon by the Assessing Officer. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the reassessment proceedings shall be considered as invalid as the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment were not supplied to the assessee during the reassessment proceedings. 6. The assessee