“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

Bhavana Suresh Chauhan, Borivali West vs. Ward42(1)(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 7290/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhavana Suresh Chauhan Ito, Ward-42(1)(1), Mumbai 703, Kguru Residency, 1 Babai Naka, Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai, Dharamdas Marg, Borivali West, Maharashtra – 400051. Mumbai – 400097. [Pan No. Adipc1169K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 254(1)Section 68

proceedings initiated u/s 148A(b) / 148 were issued in contravention of law, principles of natural justice, and prescribed procedures, thereby vitiating the entire reassessment proceedings. 8. The appellant prays that the reopening proceedings and consequential reassessment order passed u/s 147 / 143(3) be held void, illegal and without jurisdiction

Late Haresh I Chhugani Represented by Shibani Singhania Leaga Heir of Assessee, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 6481/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

fact situations. In the present case, the impugned notice under section 148 was issued on 15/04/2021, well beyond the legally permissible period. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings lack jurisdiction from their inception. The Ld. DR, despite relying on the orders of the revenue authorities, was unable to produce any contrary decision ... survive. Accordingly, the additions made by the Ld. AO become purely academic and need not be adjudicated on merits. We therefore hold that the reassessment proceeding initiated under section 148 is invalid, and the reassessment order passed pursuant thereto is liable to be quashed. As the issue is decided

ITO 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ska Sales Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5966/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 148Section 151Section 250

grounds raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO. Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order. M/s. SKA Sales Pvt Ltd, Mumbai 4. We have

Bysol Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5898/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

interest of justice. 3. Ground No.1, 2 and 3 are in regard to jurisdictional issues raised by the assessee for the reassessment proceeding initiated u/s. 148 and reassessment order passed thereafter. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income originally u/s.139 ... arranging bogus purchase bills from KMP and Sons Trading ltd. (KMP) amounting to Rs.4,66,01,531/- which led to invocation of reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice dated 07.04.2021 under the erstwhile regime of reassessment under the Act. Since this notice was issued under the erstwhile regime

M/S Sheetal Clothing Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5825/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151Section 68

have been obtained from Honorable Pr. CCIT under section 151(ii) of the Act. The failure to obtain valid and proper sanction renders the reassessment proceedings and the notice issued under section 148 as invalid, bad in law, and liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the decision ... till the disposal of the Appeal. 3. Ground No.1, 2 and 3 are in regard to jurisdictional issues raised by the assessee for the reassessment proceeding initiated u/s. 148 and reassessment order passed thereafter. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income originally u/s.139

Vijaykumar Hiralal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Cirlcle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5491/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 115BSection 153CSection 69

correct and authenticated to the extent assessee paid ‘on-money’ in cash, no addition can be made and even otherwise during the entire reassessment proceedings the veracity and reliability of the data recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a scenario no addition is warranted

Vijaykumar Hiralal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5490/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 115BSection 153CSection 69

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4819/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 35D

Court held that that issue was examined by Assessing Officer during original scrutiny assessment and there was no new material available with Assessing Officer Reassessment proceedings on ground that same were based on mere change of opinion. Order of Tribunal is affirmed. Followed CIT v. Kelvinator of India ... material available on record, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly adjudicated the legal issue relating to the validity of reassessment proceedings. The reopening in the present case has been initiated solely on the basis of a mere change of opinion, without the support of any new tangible

Mohan Jejumal Thadani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 3269/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal,(virtually appeared) &For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat,(Sr. DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

from a third party (M/s Gayatri Homes) without any corroborative evidence. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 without proper service of notice u/s 148. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the assessment order despite the fact ... erred in law in upholding the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, although the said reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction, as held by hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sejal Jewellary & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. bearing

Anumita Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

ITA 2555/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 263

regular assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 22.10.2019 by Central Circle- 2(2), Mumbai, determining income at Rs. 19,370/-. 3. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated and notice under section 148 was issued on 29.07.2022. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 08.11.2022, again declaring income ... Notice under section 143(2) was issued on 23.11.2022.The reassessment proceedings were completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.02.2023, passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) and section 144B of the Act, assessing the total income at Rs. 19,370/-, i.e. the returned income. Interest under

Amit Kumar Bajaj, Mumbai vs. DCIT-24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1309/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaramit Kumar Bajaj Dcit-24(1), A-3001, Omkar, Off Dr. Piramal Chambers, Annie Besant Road, Near Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai- Neelam Centre, Hanuman 400 012 Nagar, Worli, Maharashtra – 400 030 Pan/Gir No. Afrpb3442B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee. The assessee filed objections, which were disposed of by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, notice under section 143(2) was issued and reassessment proceedings were carried out. 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed exemption under section 10(38) in respect of Long ... inferences have been drawn on the all possible evidences as provided and placed on record of the Assessing Officer by the appellant during the reassessment proceedings to shift the onus back on the appellant. 5. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner

Ldm Agro Foods Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4347/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri R S Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 145Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 37(1)

subsequently passing the Order u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without furnishing the information or material forming the basis of the reassessment proceedings to the Appellant Company, thereby depriving the Appellant of its right to submit the objections. 2.2 That the Notice issued u/s 148A(b) being ... arbitrary and misconceived. 4.6 That in fact, the purchases made from Sh. Sumit and other concerns having been accepted by the Revenue in the reassessment proceedings for the subsequent A.Y. 2019-20, there remains no valid basis to doubt the purchases for the year under consideration. 5 That disallowance

Cone Craft Paper Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT-1, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 3592/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

said case was on the issue of bogus purchase with important implications u/s 69C of the Act and the assessee therein did not attend reassessment proceedings or explain the source of fund and even at appellate level, there was no explanation or rebuttal to allegations of bogus purchase ... case was reopened on the ground that purchases made by the assessee are from hawala operator, the assessee choose not to attend the reassessment proceedings, the assessee having consciously and intentionally decided not to join the investigation, he cannot now contend that revenue should 13 Cone Craft Paper

Sh. Jatinder Kaura (Deceased) Through L/H Smt. Dimple Kaura, Raikot, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jagraon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1394/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1394/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Jatinder Kaura The Ito, (Through L/H Smt. Dimple Kaura, Vs Ward-1, House No. 338, New Green City, Jagraon. Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Agwpk6095P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kuldeep Singh, Itp & Shri Mps Malhotra, Itp Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Kuldeep Singh, ITP & Shri MPS Malhotra, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

Punjab & Haryana High Court have held in the case of CIT Vs. Rakesh Kumar , Mukesh Kumar [2009] (303 ITR 305) that the A.Y.2017-18 4 reassessment proceedings initiated and assessments completed in the case on a dead person by the AO to be void ab initio. iii) Hon'ble Delhi High

Shri Sai Aniruddha Education Society, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2661/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2661/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

income for A.Y 2023-24 filed on 29.12.2023 declaring Nil income been taken up for compulsory scrutiny. During the course of pendency of the reassessment proceedings, various applications filed by the assessee for registration u/s.12A(1)(ac) of the Act have been rejected and ld. AO concluded the proceedings observing

Kesarinath Ram Gaikwad, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panvel

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

ITA 2139/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 10(37)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Because, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire reassessment proceedings were void ab initio since the notice issued u/s 148 was issued by the JAO and not by the FAO in gross violation of section ... notification dated 29th March, 2022 [Notification No.18/2022/F. No.370142/16/2022-TPL. 2. Because, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire reassessment proceedings were void ab initio since the approval for reopening was obtained by the Pr. CIT, Thane instead of Pr.CCIT as provided

Peda Subba Rao Unnam, Addanki vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 1664/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 69A

return of income on 25.04.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 3,25,550/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that, the assessee had made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 12,90,000/- in his bank accounts and had also earned interest

Vasuki Katakam, Kurnool vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kurnool

ITA 1327/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1327/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: CA Hari AgarwalFor Respondent: MS P Sumitha, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 64Section 69A

National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (FAO) as mandated u/s 151A r.w.s 1448 of the Act, which is invalid and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a minor student studying

Srikrishan Agarwal, Barfong vs. DCIT, Circle 3(2), Gangtok

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2625/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2623 To 2625/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2017-18 Srikrishan Agarwal…..……….……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kol-69. [Pan: Aoopa9018C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2), Gangtok………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 19, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: All The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders All Dated 15.08.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2623/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. 2. At The Outset, We Notice That The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 12 Days & The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. Considering The Same & Shortness Of The

Section 10Section 144Section 148Section 250

notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.03.2018, but the assessee did not file ITR in response to the same. The Assessing Officer completed the reassessment proceedings assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.1341823/- by estimating the business profits @8% on turnover value taken at Rs.16772790/-. 4. Aggrieved

Srikrishan Agarwal, Barfong vs. DCIT, Circle 3(2), Gangtok

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2624/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Section 10Section 144Section 148Section 250