“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

Rakesh Kumar Somani, Khandwa vs. ITO-1, Khandwa

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 215/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Boradrakesh Kumar Somani, Ito-1, 10, Ramganj Road, Khandwa Vs. Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Azgps3988J Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 133ASection 147

1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when reopening was done in absence of any tangible material and live link ... figure of Rs.31,50,000/- from the assessment order for Assessment Year 2013-14 and as a formality made the addition in the reassessment proceeding for Assessment Year 2011-12. Under these given facts where the assessee has time and again mentioned the land in question as rural agriculture land

Western Digital Technologies Inc., United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 343/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal

Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 3.1 It is noted that the reassessment proceeding was initiated on the assessee post survey conducted on SanDisk India dated 16.01.2019. It is an admitted fact that the assessee acquired SanDisk Corporation ... noted that, during the survey proceedings, the employees of SanDisk India in marketing support service division, were administered on oath following which reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of assessee for A.Y. 2016-17, based on the statements recorded of the employees. It is noted that the revenue proceeded

DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Ramona Pinto, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 345/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Milin Datani, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 28

Assessee’s case i.e. Income Tax Appeal No.2610/2018, wherein the impugned order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Tribunal (ITAT) whereby the validity of the reassessment proceedings and assessment of assessee’s sum of Rs.28 crores receivable by the assessee pursuant to arbitration award was affirmed as income”, ultimately held that

Laxmikant H Renuke, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2762/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

head capital gains. 4. The notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2016 is bad in law and without jurisdiction and consequently entire reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 5. The Ld. AO has erred in levying interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. 6. The grounds of appeal

M/S. Shri Rang Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 665/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 68

which are annexed at Pg Nos.71-75 Paperbook-1. According to the provisions of Section 68 the onus on assessee has been duly discharged in reassessment proceedings. It has been held in Apex Court and jurisdictional High Court that when the primary onus on the assessee is discharged then

M/S. Kuber Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward- 2(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1371/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1371/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/S Kuber Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd……………....................…...……………....Appellant 16, Gandhi House, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 8Th Floor, Kolkata-13. [Pan: Aacck6127H] Vs. Acit(Osd), Ward-2(3), Kolkata.………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanket Joshi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 30, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.05.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 142 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Was Not Physically Served Upon The Assessee. The Order Was Sent On Email, However, The Said Email Was Not Noticed By The Assessee, Therefore, The Assessee Did Not Come To The Knowledge Of The Passing Of The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A). The Passing Of The Order Of The Cit(A) Came To The Knowledge Of The Assessee Only On October 2023. Thereafter, The Assessee Regularly Approached His Consultant To File The Appeal, However, The Consultant Was Busy In Return Filing Activity & Did Not File The Appeal. Thereafter, The Assessee

Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250

provide the reasons for reopening recorded in this case, however, the said reasons were never confronted to the assessee till the completion of the reassessment proceedings in spite of such specific request and hence, the reassessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 without following the procedure laid down by Honorable ... before issuing notice u/s 148, however, the same has not been confronted by the A.0. to the assessee till the completion of the reassessment proceedings and hence,. it has to be presumed that no proper approval as mandated u/s 151 was obtained by the A.0. before issuing notice

Mildred Ponnoth, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (International Tax)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1802/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: MS.KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234A

favour of the assessee, ld. AR vide his written submission has 8 Mrs. Mildred Ponnoth stated that the ground regarding validity and legality of reassessment proceedings is not being pressed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 30th July, 2024. (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mahavir Metal and Alloys, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Matrumandir Nana Chowk, Mumbai

ITA 3008/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath

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

29/09/2011 declaring ‘Nil’ income. Vide Assessment Order, dated 19/03/2014, assessment was formed on the Appellant under Section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently reassessment proceedings we initiated against the Appellant under Section 147 of the Act. Vide order dated 20/12/2018 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section ... dated 20/12/2018 passed under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act challenging the 2 Assessment Year: 2011-12 validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as addition of INR 65,20,770/- made in the hands of the Appellant under Section 68 of the Act. Vide order

Kapil Goel, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(3), Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1401/DEL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)

Aggrieved the appellant/assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who disposed of the appeal due to non-prosecution, observing as under:- “During the reassessment proceedings, the appellant made his submissions which were not found fully satisfactorily. He failed to respond to the show cause notice. During the appeal proceedings, various