“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

Vidyavathi Manthravadi, United Kingdom vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(It and Tp), Hyderabad

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

ITA 295/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

returns were filed in response to the notice U/s. 148 in both the AYs. During the reassessment proceedings, the Ld.AO has considered the date of Joint Development agreement as date of purchase and has computed the capital gains accordingly. The Ld. CIT invoking the powers vested

Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, United Kingdom vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(It and Tp), Hyderabad

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

ITA 292/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

Viswamanava Samaikyata Samsat, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 278/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2014-15) M/S. Viswamanava Samikyata Vs. Income Tax Officer Samsat, Guntur. (Exemptions), Pan: Aaatv 1597 P Guntur. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148

ought to have quashed the notice U/s. 148 of the Act as invalid and ought to have quashed the consequent reassessment proceedings as void ab initio. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No.2, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 4,20,54,192/- made

Tulshi Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, WD-11(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 776/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

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

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi was not justified in sustaining the reassessment proceedings as such reassessment proceedings are bad in -law inasmuch as the AO had wrongly assumed jurisdiction to assess the case. 3. Brief facts are that ... concur with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) justifying the re-opening of assessment. Accordingly, the appellate order is set aside and the reassessment proceedings are held to be invalid and so is the assessment framed. The legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 9. In the result

Ashok Nathmal Garodia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 553/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms Neha ParanjapeFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

return of income filed in response to the notice u/s 148(1) of the Act has duly been accepted by the Ld.AO in the reassessment proceedings without making any addition or disallowance in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. Thus, the levy of penalty

ITO41(2)(3), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

ITA 4828/MUM/2023[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Shinde, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Mandar Vaidya

Section 1Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

short ‘the Act’) and reassessment tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and reassessment tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and reassessment proceedings were commenced. The reassessment was completed by proceedings were commenced. The reassessment was completed by proceedings were commenced. The reassessment was completed by the Assessing Officer

Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

ITA 4784/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Shinde, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Mandar Vaidya

Section 1Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

Shubh Resources Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 23(3), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2229/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2229/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2011-12) M/S Shubh Resources P. Ltd., C-394, Saraswati Vihar, Pitampura, New Delhi 110034 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aajcs-6389-Q बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3), New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Abhinav Jain, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/05/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 27.06.2023, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal Inter Alia Challenging Validity Of Reassessment Proceedings U/S. 147 R.W.S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 147

dated 27.06.2023, for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal inter alia challenging validity of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. 2 3. Shri Abhinav Jain appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted

M/S B.L. Foundry Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1582/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar, CIT-D.R

Section 115JSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)

under Section 115JB of the Act on the book profit of Rs.35,88,482/- was paid by the assessee. However, in the reassessment proceedings, notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued on 30.01.2020 directing the assessee to file return of income for the year under consideration against which

M/S B.L. Foundry Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1581/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar, CIT-D.R

Section 115JSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)

M/S B.L. Foundry Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Icome Tax, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1580/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar, CIT-D.R

Section 115JSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)

M/S B.L. Foundry Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1579/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar, CIT-D.R

Section 115JSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)

ITO, Ward-52(2), New Delhi vs. Gaurav Khullar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7752/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2010-11 Ito Ward-52(2) Vs. Gaurav Khullar New Delhi. A-301/6. Dr. A.P.J Kalam Marg, New Delhi – 110 011 Pan Aaypk9694G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Database available to the AO. The assessment order acknowledges filing of income tax return by the assessee. Accordingly the opening of reassessment proceedings were rightly held to be void and quashed by Learned CIT(A). In view of above material fact and well settled principle of law impugned order deserves

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. S P International, Mumbai

Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). All the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed as being without merit

ITA 430/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well the addition of INR 3,19,29,587/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases. While ... upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, substantial relief was granted to the Assessee as the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to INR 9,57,888/-, being 3% of the alleged bogus purchases of INR 3,19,29,587/-, and deleted the balance disallowance

Income Tax Officer, Kautaliya Bhavan vs. Rashesh Shirishkumar Bhuta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the learned Assessing Officer for 025

ITA 4370/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, DR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)

such bogus purchase,the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 18thFebruary 2015. The reassessment proceedings culminated into reassessment order passed on 19thFebruary, ITA Nos. 4370 & 4368/Mum/2023 Rashesh Shirishmumar Bhuta; A.Y. 10-11 & 11-12 2016, wherein the learned Assessing ... profit of ₹11,62,000/- was considered as income arising out of bogus purchases of ₹1,29,11,206/-. 07. During reassessment proceedings the assessee submitted the stock register, sales invoice details and purchase invoices along with ledger accounts etc. stating that payments have been made through account payee cheques

Income Tax Officer, Kautaliya Bhavan vs. Rashesh Shirishkumar Bhuta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the learned Assessing Officer for 025

ITA 4368/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, DR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT 19 3, Mumbai vs. Sanjiv Mahendra Parikh, Mumbai

ITA 3515/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

client code modification transaction to the tune of INR 2,14,37,399/- which had resulted in escapement of income and therefore, reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated against the Assessee and notice dated, 30/03/2019, was issued to the Assessee. Vide letter dated 24/04/2019, the Assessee ... inter alia, that the Assessing Officer did not have any fresh tangible material to form the basis of belief that income had escaped assessment. Reassessment proceedings were initiated merely on account of change of opinion on re- examination of the material already on record. The general information received

Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3176/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. M. G. Joseph Gangte, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 are bad in law as there is no live nexus between the reasons recorded and the belief formed ... been issued after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 7. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO and upheld by the learned CIT(A) are bad in the eyes of law, as the reasons recorded

Krishna Chandra Mondal, Chinsurah vs. ACIT, Cir. 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated herein above

ITA 58/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69

that the statutory notice u/s 143(2) dated 20.10.2020 was not issued within time allowed as per law and therefore the entire reassessment proceedings is bad in law. Page 2 of 11 I.T.A. No.: 58/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Krishna Chandra Mondal. 9. For that the matter should have been

Blueview Commodities (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-7(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 753/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

validity of the assessment proceedings u/s 147/144 of the Act is concerned. It has further held that the failure of the AO, in reassessment proceedings, to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act prior to the finalizing the reassessment order cannot be condoned by referring the Section 292BB