“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

Shri Chetas Karamshi Nandu, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward-22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhchetas Karmshi Nandu Vs. Ito 22(1)(3) B/304, Jay Apartment, Room No. 314, 3 Rd Floor, Nehru Road, Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aijpn0030C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. Prakash Kishinchandani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer of initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act merely on the basis of change of opinion without being in possession of any fresh tangible material after completion

Shri Subhash Arora, Raisen vs. The ITO 2(5), Bhopal

ITA 179/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Subhash Arora, Ito, Hig 9/B, Ishan Park, 5(2), Patel Nagar, Bhopal बनाम/ Raisen Road, Bhopal Vs.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54FSection 69A

Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:- 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case the reassessment proceedings instituted u/s 148 is bad and unjust. Page 1 of 11 Shri Subhash Arora Assessment year 2012-13 2. That reassessment initiated

Viral Lavjibhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat

In the result, assessee`s appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 450/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.450/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Viral Lavjibhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-18, Naginawadi Society, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat, Aaykar Sumul Dairy Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. Surat – 395004. New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alvpp2897E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/10/2023

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

case including the findings of the NFAC/ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. So far the argument of ld Counsel that reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is bad-in-law, we note that NFAC/ld CIT(A) has passed a speaking order upholding the validity of reassessment

Grishma Hemanshu Mody, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 895/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

discharge the initial burden placed upon it with regard to the loan received by it. We notice that the AO has initiated the reassessment proceedings on the basis of investigation report relating to the lender. The Ld A.R submitted that the investigation report is entirely based on a statement taken ... said statement has been retracted by him on 28-03-2018. Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that the AO could not have initiated reassessment proceedings on the basis of a retracted statement. 6. We notice that the AO has mainly relied upon the report of investigation wing to come

Laxman Mahadev Patil (Legal Heir Hemant Laxman Patil), Laxman Patil House vs. Income Tax Officer 41(2)(3) Earlier Assessed With ITO 29(2)(2)., Kautilya Bhavan

The appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 2555/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice C.V. Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. PaiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 55A

issued after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and there being no lapse on part of assessee, the reassessment proceedings were invalid; and, that on facts, the addition was erroneous inasmuch as the ‘transfer’ of the plot of land in question had not taken

Mrs Rajani S.Iyer, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2240/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita No. 2239 & 2240/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mrs. Rajani S Iyer, Acit-20(3), 14/222, Bhaskar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. Sri Balachandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400019. Pan No. Aaopi 9178 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Haridas Bhat Revenue By : Mrs. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 11/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Mrs. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 143(3)

reassessment issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 18.03.2015. The reassessment issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 18.03.2015. The reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was completed on 23.03.2016 proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was completed on 23.03.2016 proceedings

Mrs Rajani S. Iyer, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-20(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2239/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Mrs. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 143(3)

Maa Chandi Rice Industries, Kurud vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamatri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 295/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 295/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Maa Chandi Rice Industries, Shop No.7, Bhothali Road, Kurud, Dhamtari-493 663 (C.G.) Pan : Aaofm6916H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

only reasons to suspect without having any tangible material in his possession; not sufficient to believe for escaped income of Rs.28,47,000.; reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated only to examine the facts of the case unless there is reason to believe rather than suspect; in the absence ... valid reasons recorded as mandated by law u/s.148/147, reassessment proceedings u/s.147/148 would be invalid and is liable to be quashed. "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.28,47,000 made u/s.69C

Himanshu Goyal, Dhamtari vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur

In the result legal grounds raised by the assessee under present appeal is allowed

ITA 144/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.144/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-2013) Himanshu Goyal, Vs Pr.Cit, Raipur-1, Raipur Nawagaon Road, Dhamtari, 793773, (C.G.) Pan No. :Agtpg1746Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Praveen KhandelwalFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 263

fresh assessment order. It is the submission of the ld. AR of the assessee that since the issue on the foundation of which reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act was started but after satisfaction, no addition could have been made by the AO, therefore, as per the settled 13 legal

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbaicircle-32(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 979/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.975 To 978 & 979 To 981/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: AnujKisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

adjudicated supra in this order, therefore, applying the finding of ITA No. 975/Mum/2022 the additional ground filed by the assesse regarding validity of the reassessment proceedings is allowed, therefore, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 12. Since the facts and the issue involved in this appeal are similar

Barcelona Mercantile Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Ward 12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2346/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay N. KapadiaaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

response to the aforesaid notice, the assessee filed the return of income on 18/04/2018, declaring a total income of Rs.7,59,792. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the amount of Rs.1.50 crore received from M/s Minaxi Suppliers Barcelona Mercantile Company ... accounts and has received Rs.1.50 crore of its unaccounted money after layering of funds through bank channels of various non-existing and shell companies, reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the Act in the case of the assessee. It is undisputed that the original return of income filed

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT, Circle-32(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 981/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.975 To 978 & 979 To 981/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: AnujKisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commisssioner of Income Tax, Circle-32(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 980/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.975 To 978 & 979 To 981/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: AnujKisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT Circle-32(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 978/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhvivek Raghu Shetty Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 1/1, Shrinagar Building, Income-Tax Circle-32(3) Chandavarker Road, M.K. Road, New Marine Borivali (West), Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400092 Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeps2750D Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Anuj Kisnadwala Respondent By : Ajeya Kumar Ojha Date Of Hearing 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 11.03.2022 For A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Contention Of Assessing Officer That Shares Of M/S Comfort Intec Ltd Is A Penny Stock. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Considering The Fact That The Appellant Is Engaged In Business Of Trading In Shares & Offered The Income Generated From The Same Under The Head Of 'Profit & Gain From Business & Profession & Not Claimed Benefit Of Exemption Under Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Deleting Addition Of Entire Sale Consideration Amounting To Rs.20,46,524/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S. 68 Of The Act Alleging The Same To Be Transaction In Penny Stock.

For Appellant: Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ajeya Kumar Ojha

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

throughout the country. During the course of investigation it was found that Ms/ Comfort Intech Ltd. was a bogus entity. During the course of reassessment proceedings the AO stated that assessee has made transaction in script M/s Comfort Intech which was a penny stock. The AO further stated that

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT, Circle-32(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 977/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.975 To 978 & 979 To 981/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: AnujKisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT, Circle-32(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 976/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.975 To 978 & 979 To 981/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: AnujKisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-32(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 975/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.975 To 978 & 979 To 981/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: AnujKisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Varsha Shrikant Paranjape, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax - 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3252/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhvarsha Shrikant Vs. Acit, Circle 25(3) Paranjape, Paranjape C-10, 6Th Floor, Room No. Bungalow, 2Nd Floor, 34, 601, Pratyaksha Kar Mg Road, Vile Parle Bhavan, Bandra Kurla (East), Mumbai – 400057 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 51 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaapp6199H Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Ronak Doshi, Chaitanya Doshi & Karan Jain Respondent By : Vithal Machindra Bhosale Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2023

For Appellant: Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Vithal Machindra Bhosale

Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 45(4)

contained in Ground No II to IV filed before the Id. CIT(A) and thereby simply dismissing the entire appeal solely upon upholding the reassessment proceedings. 2.2 The Appellant prays that the Id. CIT(A) be directed to adjudicate the grounds on merits WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND

ACIT Cent. Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Sumatichand Gouti Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2375/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2Section 68

first proviso. It also means that only one assessment will be made under the aforesaid provisions as the two proceedings i.e. assessment or reassessment proceedings and proceedings under this provision merge into one. If assessment made under sub-section (1) is annulled in appeal or other legal proceedings, then

ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Brijwasi Jewellers, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1950/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

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

case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO despite that reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO without valid approval of the prescribed authority under the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed