← 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

Mahesh D.Tekchandani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1028/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Mahesh Tekchandani, Income-Tax Officer, 67, Shivalik Bungalows, Ward-3(3)(3), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aespt 5350 A अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Siddhartha Nautiyal: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.10.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.1 The Order Passed By U/S.250 Passed On 20.10.2023 By Cit(A)-Nfac Delhi Upholding The Addition Of Rs.28,72,000/- Made By A.O. Is Wholly Illegal, Unlawful & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 1.2 The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The First Payment By Cheque Was Made On 03.02.2014 & The Final Purchase Deed Was Executed In Fy 2018-19. But No Evidence Pointed Out By Ao To Prove That The Alleged Cash Payment Was Made During The Previous Year Relevant To A.Y. 2012-13. 2 Mahesh D. Tekchandani Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

proceedings were initiated against assessee under Section 153C and Assessing Officer did not record his satisfaction with regard to escapement of income, impugned reassessment proceeding was not sustainable. The SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in DCIT v. Dinakara Suvarna 151 taxmann.com ... requesting him to take appropriate action under Section 153C of the Act issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereupon, Assessing Officer having initiated reassessment proceedings under section 148, passed an assessment order. The assessee took an additional ground of appeal to the effect that reassessment proceedings initiated by Assessing

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Jubilee Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 806/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S. Jubilee Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, 9B, Bansidhar Apartments, Circle-5, Gyanganga Classes, Ahmedabad Jawaharnagar, Vasna, Ahmedabad Pan : Aabcj 0614 P अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Siddhartha Nautiyal: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 05.01.2016, Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. 2. The Department Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding The Reassessment Proceedings As Void. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Not Appreciating That The Assessment Was Reopened Within Four Years From The Relevant Assessment Year & The Issue Decided In Reassessment Proceedings Was Not Dealt With During Original Assessment Proceedings..

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr DR
Section 147Section 250(6)

Department has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding the reassessment proceedings as void. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not appreciating that the assessment was reopened within four years ... from the relevant assessment year and the issue decided in reassessment proceedings was not dealt with during original assessment proceedings.. 2 ACIT Vs. Jubilee Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. AY : 2008-09 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to allow the assessee short

Speedking Courier Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-4(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4677/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13 Speedking Courier Income Tax Officer- Services Pvt. Ltd. 4(3)(3), 25/27, Old Hanuman Galli, Room No. 648, Vs. 1St Cross Lane, 6Th Floor, Kalbadevi, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400 002. Maharshi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan: Aaics3715M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) Sr., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 16 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. The Appellant Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Income Tax Officer- 4(3)(3) Mumbai By Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Addition Of Rs.1,53,00,000/- Made Under Section 68 Of The Act Is Not Justified. 1. The Ld Cit(A) Is Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,53,00,000/- Made By The Ld. A.O. Under Section 68 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Basic Condition To Invoke The Provisions Of Section 68 Are Not Satisfied In The Present Case. Hence, The Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Act Is Not In Accordance With The Law & The Same May Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT) Sr., D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 234BSection 68

without jurisdiction and bad in law. The Appellant submits that the additional grounds raised by the Appellant are legal issues regarding initiation of reassessment proceedings which go to the root of the proceedings. Hence, the same may be admitted.” 10. We have first considered the additional ground raised before