“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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Projects International Limited, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6159/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

separate legal entity, and KPIL became its successor for all legal and tax purposes. This legal position is undisputed. On this basis, the reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2018-19 were initiated by issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the name of KPIL ... made separately and strictly in accordance with the representative assessment provisions of the Act. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the reassessment proceedings, insofar as they seek to assess and make additions relating to JMC for A.Y. 2018-19 in the hands of the assessee

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Projects Inernational Limited, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6114/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Projects International Limited, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6113/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Gujarat vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5961/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5960/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Gujarat vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5959/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

Abhishek Jayketu Joshi, Mumbai vs. Ac Cir-42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5775/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarabhishek Jayketu Joshi Ac Cir-42(2)(1), C-73, Venus Society, R. G. Kautilya Bhavan, Thadani Marg, Worli Sea Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Face, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Ackpj8583H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M. M. Golvala, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

declaring the same income as originally returned and again claiming deduction under section 80GGC of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 6. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer raised specific queries regarding the genuineness of the donation, including the circumstances in which the assessee came to know about the political party ... drawing our attention to the notice issued under section 148A(b). It was submitted that the very foundation of the reassessment proceedings is vitiated, as the said notice was issued on the basis of vague, generalized and borrowed information, without there being any tangible material demonstrating escapement of income

Rattan Jodharam Harchwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5771/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 148

find any infirmity in the action of the Appellate authority. 7.1 The 1d.AR has taken the ground of validity of the reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order on legal ground which has been raised for the first time before us. The issue regarding approval by appropriate authority was never

Haffkine Bio Pharmaceutical Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT 7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 5352/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mayur MakadiaFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250

Tribunal, vide its order dated 06.04.2015, restored the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for verification of the said expenditure. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee reiterated the same submissions and contended that the provision of Rs.2,00,00,000/- was made on the basis of the expected

Gita M Shah, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4484/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Shivani ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

order u/s 148A(d) with approval of Pr CCIT Mumbai and issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 28.07.2022. The A.O conducted the reassessment proceeding , and finally passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w,s 144B of the Act , making addition of long term capital gain of Rs.2 ... addition to the ground originally raised before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has raised additional grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the reassessment proceedings as under : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Order is time barred as held by Hon'ble Supreme

Sundaram Subramanian Rep. by Legal Heir S Sundaram, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2420/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Sundaram Subramanian, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2419/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Nilesh Pravinchandra Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai, Maharashtra

ITA 8368/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnilesh Pravinchandra Ito Ward 42(1)(3), Doshi Kautilya Bhavan, B/29, Pushpanjali Vs. Bandra Kurla Building, Jambli Gully, Complex, Bandra Borivali West, Mumbai- East, 400 092 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Amcpd6391D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Jay Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2026

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

issued on 29.07.2022, in response to which the assessee filed return of income declaring the same income as originally returned. 3. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made the following additions: 1. Rs. 1,26,730/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) on account of difference between stamp duty

Laxmanaram Ganchi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 8359/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 115Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

upon the assessee. It was contended that the assessee had not received any notice either physically or electronically from the Assessing Officer during the reassessment proceedings, nor was he aware of the culmination of such proceedings until receipt of the notice of demand dated 01.01.2025. 4. It was further submitted

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is partly

ITA 2831/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

contract expenses which according to Investigation Wing of Income- tax Department, Ahmadabad were not genuine. Accordingly, after carrying out inquiry during the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer held corresponding expenses amounting to Rs.3,74,61,918/- as unexplained and non-genuine. 2.3 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before ... challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as assailed the additions on merit. The reopening was challenged on many propositions but the Ld. CIT(A) rejected all those contentions of the assessee. But as far as merit of the addition is concerned the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both

Seema Rani Sarna, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-1, Fatehabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 6236/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhrieash Kumar Sarna, Vs Ito, Ward -1, House No. 35, Ward 19, Fatehabad Friends Colony, Tohana Haryana Fatehabad-125120 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) & Seema Rani Sarna, Vs. Ito, Ward -1, Plot No. 10, Ratia Road, Fatehabad Jamalpur Sheikhan, Haryana Fatehabad-125120 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Kothari, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 3Section 3(1)

issuance of notice under section 148, as per section 149, had expired on 31.3.2022, however, notice under section 148 was issued on 29.7.2022, reassessment proceedings initiated beyond prescribed limitation period were rendered void ab initio and unsustainable in law, when these facts were confronted to the Ld. DR, he could

Eash Kumar Sarna, Fatehabad vs. ITO Ward-1, Fatehabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 6235/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Kothari, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 3Section 3(1)

Rekha Gupta, Motihari vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 81/PAT/2025[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.81/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 1991-92 Rekha Gupta………..………….………………. …………………....Appellant Balua Tal, Motihari, East Champaran, Bihar-845401. [Pan: Adkpg6602P] Vs. Acit, Cc, Muzaffarpur………...……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.12.2024 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 1991-92. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business & Other Sources. During The Relevant Period, The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Sale Of Liquor On Wholesale & Retail Basis In The Proprietary Concern Styled As M/S Surya Enterprises. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132(1) Of The Act Was Conducted At The Business Premises As Well As The Residential Premises Of The Assessee. Pursuant Thereto, An Assessment

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 158BSection 250

with law. In pursuance of the Tribunal’s directions, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) for the block period. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹24,23,499 on account of alleged undisclosed investment in stock, and an addition

Rajesh Kumar Sah, Muzaffarpur vs. ITO, Ward- 1 (1), Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 165/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.165/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Sah.………….………………. …………………....Appellant C/O Harilal Prasad Navanagar, Nijamat, Karnowl, Sahebgunj, Muzaffarpur-843125. Bihar.. [Pan: Efwpk4178C] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Muzaffarpur…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. P. Tulsiyan, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.02.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018–19. Consequently, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued. However, Even In Response To The Notice Under Section 148, The Assessee Failed To File The Return Of Income. During The Reassessment Proceedings, On Verification Of Bank Accounts, The Assessing Officer Noticed Cash Deposits Aggregating To ₹3,26,54,960, Which Were Treated As Unexplained Money Under Section

Section 148Section 250

issued. However, even in response to the notice under section 148, the assessee failed to file the return of income. During the reassessment proceedings, on verification of bank accounts, the Assessing Officer noticed cash deposits aggregating to ₹3,26,54,960, which were treated as unexplained money under section I.T.A

Yogesh Sood, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhopal

In the result we are of the considered opinion that the

ITA 424/IND/2025[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 69C

Yogesh Sood ITA No. 424/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That