← 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

M/S.Three Line Properties, Kozhikkode vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Kozhikkode

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

ITA 477/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Richard Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 147

Crore). Based on this information, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s.147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income-tax Act. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked for the source of Rs.9,00,00,000/-(Nine Crore). The assessee responded, that the source was capital contribution from

Dhanraj Kochar HUF, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle II(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1926/CHNY/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dhanraj Kochar Huf, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 33, Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax, Chennai 600 079. Central Circle – Ii(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaahd2785H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennai-16, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of One Day. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Petition, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 17Section 54

construction cost paid is only one totalling to ₹.42,12,173/- constituting purchase value, stamp duty and construction cost. The Assessing Officer in the reassessment proceedings considered these two transactions as separate and denied the exemption under section 54 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) while considering

Raghav Commodities, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 943/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

merely on suspicion and without recording any subjective belief as to escapement of income (which is the pre- condition to reopening) and thus reassessment proceedings initiated are not in accordance with law and the consequent reassessment order so passed deserves to be held bad in law. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE ... Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 8. It is apt to mention here that the appellant could not furnish the audited tax report during the reassessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings in spite of multiple hearing opportunities provided to the appellant. The comprehensive submission made by the appellant

Shri Prem Industries, Bharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bharatpur

The appeal is disposed of, and the matter is remanded to

ITA 877/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 271ASection 69CSection 70

that said particular statement of Shri Rakesh Bansal was not being used against the assessee for the purpose of drawing final conclusion in the reassessment proceedings. It is significant to note that at no stage the assessee has come up with the plea that any such statement attributed ... said sellers was being made basis or being considered for the purposes of framing of the assessment. The AO clarified that reassessment proceedings were being conducted on the basis of independent enquiries. 34. From the material available on record, we find that the Assessing Officer framed assessment mainly

Ashok Sharma, Kota vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 - Kota, Kota

ITA 359/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.) (V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

after completion, of the assessment under s. 143(3) of the Act is not a legally approved determinant for valid initiation of reassessment proceeding under s. 147 of the Act the essential and inviolable condition precedent therefor being the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped ... Opinion while issuing Notice for rectification of mistake apparent on record u/s 154 dated 21/11/2017 1.3) Opinion during issuance of notice u/s 148 and reassessment proceedings u/s 147 Submissions on the above headings is as detailed below, for your consideration, with utmost regards your honour(s): 1.1) Formation of opinion

Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Lashkaria Construction Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3547/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

concerns are into providing bogus bills without actual delivery of goods. Section 147 of the Act contemplates three primary conditions for the initiation of reassessment proceedings:  There should be reason to believe, that  Income chargeable to tax, has  Escaped assessment The undersigned has carefully applied his mind to the above

Hasmukh Dipchand Gardi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai

ITA 1309/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Smt. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Sri Biswanath Das, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 144CSection 153ASection 35A

find any merits in the contention raised by the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of appeal no.2 stands dismissed. This case relates to reassessment proceedings of AY 2014-15 & the order was passed after 01.04.2020 hence ITAT held that AO has correctly passed the draft assessment order. In the appellant case

Hasmukh Dipchand Gardi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 1308/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Smt. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Sri Biswanath Das, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 144CSection 153ASection 35A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hasmukh Dipchand Gardi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 1307/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Smt. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Sri Biswanath Das, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 144CSection 153ASection 35A

find any merits in the contention raised by the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of appeal no.2 stands dismissed. This case relates to reassessment proceedings of AY 2014-15 & the order was passed after 01.04.2020 hence ITAT held that AO has correctly passed the draft assessment order. In the appellant case

Hasmukh Dipchand Gardi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 1306/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Smt. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Sri Biswanath Das, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 144CSection 153ASection 35A

find any merits in the contention raised by the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of appeal no.2 stands dismissed. This case relates to reassessment proceedings of AY 2014-15 & the order was passed after 01.04.2020 hence ITAT held that AO has correctly passed the draft assessment order. In the appellant case

ACIT - 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rishabh Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1295/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishnakumar (Sr.DR)
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 68

that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. Assessing Officer is bad in law as the conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been satisfied. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... pressed. 5. Ground no.1 raised in Revenue's appeal and ground no.2 raised in assessee's cross objection pertains to the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act. 6. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: The assessee

Surinder Singh, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-4, Karnal

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 779/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/AO erred in initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act without proper reasons for reopening the assessment proceedings and without satisfying the statutory requirements of section

Ballu Singh, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-68(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 2727/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2727/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13) Ballu Singh, House No. 415, Sector-22, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Arbps-7573-G

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

assessee in his return of income had not disclosed transaction of sale immovable property. On the basis of NMS information, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings. Notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 29.03.2019 was issued to the assessee. There

Bhanu Pratap, Bareilly vs. ITO-1(1), Bareilly

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

ITA 133/LKW/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)

jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 148 of the IT Act. The second ground of appeal is regarding validity of reassessment proceedings on the ground that the reasons recorded suffered from infirmities and the belief of the Assessing Officer was erroneous. The aforesaid two issues have been ... 22/12/2023 of learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 4.0 Submission of the appellant filed during the appellate proceeding is reproduced as under: “The reassessment proceedings in the above mentioned case was completed by the Ld Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Bareilly at an income

Sh. Mukut Behari Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The DCIT, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1067/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

income escaping assessment representing "ASSET" exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- in accordance with explanation to Section 149 of the Act. Thus, the reassessment proceedings initiated is time barred and entire proceedings are void ab initio. 1.3. Without prejudice to above, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming ... received from I & CI, which is evident from order passed u/s 148A (APB 98-112). It is felt that the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings has to be judged with regard to the material available with the AO and that too by framing the opinion strictly based

Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul Bhawan Samiti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1013/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 271Section 271(1)

being heard to the assessee. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. A.O. grossly erred in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also, Ld AO grossly ... erred in initiating reassessment proceedings contrary to the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act as section 149(1)(b) categorically lays down certain conditions for reopening which have not been fulfilled by the Assessing officer. Therefore initiation of reassessment proceedings is barred by limitation. Moreover

Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul Bhawan Samiti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1012/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Ld
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

being heard to the assessee. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. A.O. grossly erred in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also, Ld AO grossly ... erred in initiating reassessment proceedings contrary to the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act as section 149(1)(b) categorically lays down certain conditions for reopening which have not been fulfilled by the Assessing officer. Therefore initiation of reassessment proceedings is barred by limitation. Moreover

Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul Bhawan Samiti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1011/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Ld
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

being heard to the assessee. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. A.O. grossly erred in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also, Ld AO grossly ... erred in initiating reassessment proceedings contrary to the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act as section 149(1)(b) categorically lays down certain conditions for reopening which have not been fulfilled by the Assessing officer. Therefore initiation of reassessment proceedings is barred by limitation. Moreover

Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul Bhawan Samiti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1010/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Ld
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

being heard to the assessee. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. A.O. grossly erred in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also, Ld AO grossly ... erred in initiating reassessment proceedings contrary to the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act as section 149(1)(b) categorically lays down certain conditions for reopening which have not been fulfilled by the Assessing officer. Therefore initiation of reassessment proceedings is barred by limitation. Moreover

Saraswati Mukund Education Society, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption, Thane

ITA 4010/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh V. KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(cc)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect.” 3. The relevant facts are in brief that in the present case the reassessment proceedings were initiated and assessment was framed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act vide Assessment Order, dated 21/03/2023. The Assessing Officer ... Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the above Assessment Order, dated 21/03/2022, challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings but granted partial relief