← 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

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

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

ITA 2623/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corp Circle II Madurai, Madurai vs. Virudhunagar District Central Co Op Bank Limited, Virudhunagar

ITA 2699/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2699/Chny/2025 &2700/Chny/2025 By Revenue C.O.No.92/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 2699/Chny/2025)& C.O.No.93/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 2700/Chny/2025) By Assessee निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Non Corp Circle Ii, Madurai, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bb Kulam Madurai-625002, Madurai, Tamil Nadu (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) V. Virudhunagar District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited 104/1, Madurai Road, Kamaraj Nagar, S.O. Virudhunagar,Virudhunagar- 626001. Tamil Nadu [Pan:Aaaav 0147 N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे//Assessee By Mr. R. Prasanna Venkatesan, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे Respondent/Revenue By Mr. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026 :-2-:

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Income- tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"); and 2. Non-allowance of brought forward losses of earlier assessment years on the ground that reassessment proceedings for those years were pending. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee originally claimed deduction of Rs.21,03,27,765/-u/s.36(1)(viia), computed

Premji Bhurlal Gala, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Rang 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6596/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Premji Bhurlal Gala Addl. Cit Range 24(1), B-301, Water Ford, Cd Mumbai Barfiwala Road Juhu Fally Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai - 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla 400058 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Satish Kumar, Ld. A. Rs. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act, On The Basis Of Search & Survey Action Under Section 132 Of The Act Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Wherein The Statement Of The Partner In M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Mr. Nilesh Bharani Was Recorded Under Section 132(4) Of The Act, Unearthing An Undisclosed Activity, 2 Premji Bhurlal Gala

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & SatishFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

under: 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, it is a fact on record that the reassessment proceedings, u/s. 147 of the Act in the course of which penalty proceedings u/s. 271D and 271E were initiated have been quashed as void ab initio ... under: "9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, it is a fact on record that the reassessment proceedings, ws. 147 of the Act in the course of which penalty proceedings u/s. 271D and 271E were initiated have been quashed as void ab initio

Sunil Kumar Singh, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 60(5), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 3657/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarsunil Kumar Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, S-172B, Pandav Nagar, Ward 60 (5), Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Bbfps2668B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.01.2025 Date Of Order : 28.01.2026 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 03.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) & The Consequential Proceedings Are Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Barred By Time Limitation. 2. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Cit(A)’] Has Erred In Not Quashing The Reassessment Proceedings, Which Are Ex Facie Bad In Law & In Violation Of The Settled Judicial

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 68

without jurisdiction and barred by time limitation. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] has erred in not quashing the reassessment proceedings, which are ex facie bad in law and in violation of the settled judicial 2 pronouncements, and has further erred in upholding the additions/disallowances made

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), Delhi vs. Ramayna Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4147/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalramayna Ispat Private Limited, Dcit, A-48, 1St Floor, Wazirpur Circle-19(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110052. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccr7382R (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Ramayna Ispat Private Limited, A-48, 1St Floor, Wazirpur Circle-19(1), New Delhi. Vs. Industrial Area, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aaccr7382R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Maneesh Upneja, Ca, Shri Baldev Raj, Ca & Ms. Sanju Kumari, Adv. Department By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 11.07.2024 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) For Assessment Year 2018-19. Ramayna Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Ltd. Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing, Processing, Forging, Casting Mixing Of Various Kinds Of Steel, Carbon Settle, Mild Steel, Stainless Steel, High Speed Steel & Bright Steel Etc. The Return Of Income Was Revised On 28.10.2018 At An Income Of Rs.1,00,96,587/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 148 For The Reason That Assessee Has Taken Accommodation Entries Of Bogus Purchases & After Considering The Submissions Made, Ao Had Made The Addition Of Rs.5,78,99,593/- U/S 69C Of The Act Towards Unexplained Expenditure On Account Of Bogus Purchase & Further Invoked The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. The Ao Further Made An Addition Of Rs.3,14,795/- By Estimating The Net Profit Declared By The Assessee. Besides This Further Disallowance Of Rs.9,37,608/- Was Made Out Of Freight Expenses And, Accordingly, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.6,87,83,788/-.

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 690Section 69C

that the assessee has failed to prove any genuineness of the purchases amounting to Rs.5,78,99,593/- from the bogus paper entities during reassessment proceedings as well as during appellate proceedings, therefore the same was rightly disallowed by the assessing officer being unexplained expenditure

Mr. Harivijay Pralhad Joshi, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(3), Pune, Swargate

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2297/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2297/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr.Harivijay Prahlad Joshi, V The Income Tax 3 & 4, Megh Terrace 55 S Officer, Rambaug, Colony, Behind Ward-3(3), Pune. Chaitanya Health Club, Kothrud, Pune – 411038. Pan: Aappj9257M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar – (Virtual) On Rotation Duty Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 14.11.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)

issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, without complying with the various jurisdictional preconditions and statutory safeguards under Income Tax Act, rendering the reassessment proceedings bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. NFAC ... Jurisdictional Honble Bombay High Court in case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) as mandatory jurisdictional condition and therefore, the impugned reassessment proceedings and the consequential reassessment order may please be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without

Sun Power Life Battery Centre, Kovilpatti vs. ITO Ward 2, Tuticorin

ITA 3390/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3390/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sun Power Life Battery Centre Ito Ward 2 Tuticorin No. 23H-25, Krishnan Kovil St, Kovilpatti-628501 19A Main Building, West Greater Cotton Road, Tuticorin-628001 [Pan: Abnfs 4366 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Mr. K. Balasubramanian Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 14.10.2025 For Ay 2018-19.

For Appellant: Mr. K. BalasubramanianFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami
Section 144BSection 147Section 148

subsequently, in appeal, the Supreme Court vide SLP (C) Diary No. 13266/2025, order dated 04.04.2025, categorically directed that the Revenue may proceed with the reassessment proceedings, but any adverse order against the petitioner therein shall not be given effect to until further orders. This direction of the Supreme Court ... Supreme Court, has not been stayed. 10. This Court has maintained a consistent position, that both JAO and FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. In fact, in PC Jeweller Ltd. (Supra), a coordinate bench of this Court had dismissed a writ petition