← 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

Sree Ganesh Gears Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Mysuru

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

ITA 824/BANG/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2006-07 M/S. Sree Ganesh Gears The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 106, Belegola Income Tax, Industrial Area, Circle – 1(2), Mysuru – 570 016. Mysuru. Vs. Pan: Aaecs8142C Appellant Respondent : Shri Ajith .V, Advocate I/B Shri Assessee By B.S. Balachandran, Advocate : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Revenue By Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 30-05-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-06-2024 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05/03/2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2006-07. “Legal Grounds: 1. The Order Dated 04 March 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Is Bad & Erroneous & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case; 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Grounds Of Limitation Without Appreciating That The Appeal Was Filed Within The Time Limit Provided By The Hon'Ble High Court

For Respondent: Shri Ajith .V, Advocate i/b Shri
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 43B

Appellant in W.P. No. 37722/2016 (T-IT) and hence, the appeal filed was within time. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings and the assessment concluded by the learned Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(2), Mysuru ("Ld AO") under section ... Appellant under proviso to the erstwhile provisions of section 147 of the Act; 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Ld AO based on change of opinion and without having any tangible material which shows escapement of income, thereby violating the provisions

Himalaya Distilleries Ltd., Sikkim vs. ITO, WD-3(1), Gangtok, Sikkim

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 757 & 758/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Himalaya Distilleries Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Majitar Vs Gangtok Rangpo – 737136 [East Sikkim] [Pan : Aacch6217P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/R Revenue By : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Evenly Dt. 29/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) For Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. As The Issues Raised In Both These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Common, They Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. Perusal Of The Grounds Of Appeal Indicate That Apart From The Grounds Raised On Merit, A Common Legal Ground Has Been Raised Challenging The Validity Of The Re-Assessment Proceedings On Account Of Wrong Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act & That The Re-

For Appellant: Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 250

Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Himalaya Distilleries Ltd. 5. Subsequent to the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act during the course of reassessment proceedings was commonly stated that the assessee company falls under the category of Association of Persons (AOP) and since there is no positive income ... relating to re-assessment is ‘belief’ and not 'suspicion' These essential elements are obviously and glaringly missing in the instant case which renders the reassessment proceedings as well as the order passed ex-facie null in law. It is settled that before an Assessing Officer can be said to have

Himalaya Distilleries Ltd., Sikim vs. ITO, WD-3(1), Gangtok, Sikim

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 757 & 758/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Himalaya Distilleries Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Majitar Vs Gangtok Rangpo – 737136 [East Sikkim] [Pan : Aacch6217P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/R Revenue By : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Evenly Dt. 29/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) For Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. As The Issues Raised In Both These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Common, They Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. Perusal Of The Grounds Of Appeal Indicate That Apart From The Grounds Raised On Merit, A Common Legal Ground Has Been Raised Challenging The Validity Of The Re-Assessment Proceedings On Account Of Wrong Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act & That The Re-

For Appellant: Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 250

Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Himalaya Distilleries Ltd. 5. Subsequent to the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act during the course of reassessment proceedings was commonly stated that the assessee company falls under the category of Association of Persons (AOP) and since there is no positive income ... relating to re-assessment is ‘belief’ and not 'suspicion' These essential elements are obviously and glaringly missing in the instant case which renders the reassessment proceedings as well as the order passed ex-facie null in law. It is settled that before an Assessing Officer can be said to have