“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

Harish Chandra Purohit, Ratlam vs. Income Tax Officer - 1, Ratlam

In the result- the Impugned order is set aside as and by way

ITA 221/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

liable to be quashed and the addition is liable to be deleted. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating the reassessment proceedings: 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the reassessment proceedings, merely ... fresh tangible material on record and without having and information which suggests that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Thus, the reassessment proceedings are liable to be set aside and the Assessment Order dated 15.03.2023 is liable to be quashed. 2.2 On the facts and in the circumstances

Kumar Matunga Project, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2200/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 69

denovo adjudication by the Ld. AO. Before us, the assessee has raised a legal ground (ground No. 1 reproduced above) challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) on the ground that

Yadiki Pacs, Anantapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anantapur

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

ITA 926/HYD/2025[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026

Bench: the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the Order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad rejecting the appellant's application filed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay in filing the Income Tax Return for the subject AY 2019-20 is pending for disposal as on date. 7. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act in consequence to the above." 3

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 80ASection 80P

total income nil and claimed deduction under Section 80P amounting to Rs. 1,08,08,087/-. 4 Yadiki PACS 4. During the course of reassessment proceedings, several opportunities were provided to the assessee by issuing notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2). Though the assessee filed partial replies along ... operative Societies Act, 1964 and had not filed its return of income under Section 139 for A.Y. 2019-20. It was submitted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information relating to cash deposits of Rs.4,08,95,292/- in its bank account, which according

Thilak Babu Boppana, Chittor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1628/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Shabid SameerFor Respondent: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148A

were set aside by the High Courts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only permitted the Union of India to proceed further with the reassessment proceedings under the amended provision of law, more particularly, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. It never intended the authorities concerned to continue with

Doriswamy Gopi, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2020/BANG/2025[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nagaraja K.H, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

wrong and non-existent facts is not a mere procedural irregularity but a substantive illegality, which strikes at the validity of the entire reassessment proceedings. Further, once the very foundation of the reopening is found to be vitiated by an incorrect assumption of facts, subsequent awareness or acknowledgment ... Assessing Officer during the reassessment proceedings that the return of income had been filed cannot retrospectively validate the jurisdiction assumed at the time of recording reasons. Jurisdiction must be tested only on the basis of reasons recorded, and not on the basis of material gathered or observations made thereafter. Accordingly

Kalpana Nitin Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7012/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Harshad M. Karnik, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 194Section 271(1)(c)

assessee are as under: Kalpana Nitin Shah “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the entire reassessment proceedings initiated by issuance of notice under Section 148 dated 28/03/2018 are void ab initio as the said notice was issued without obtaining the mandatory

Devi Manubhai Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - Circle 32(1), Mumbai

ITA 7005/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54F

addition made by the Assessing Officer by denying exemption claimed by the Assessee under Section 54F of the Act and the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. It was submitted by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee that the Assessing Officer had initiated reassessment proceedings ... judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. : 198 ITR 297 (SC), once reassessment proceedings are validly initiated, the Assessing Officer can assess any income that comes to light even if the same is not mentioned in the reasons recorded

Jankalyan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Mar Shahapur, Shahapur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Kalyan

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

ITA 6301/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)

section 148, the assessee filed its return of income on 05.05.2022, declaring total income of Rs. 15,24,220/-. 3. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted registration certificate and byelaws of the society, audit report along with balance sheet and profit and loss account, details of share

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Santosh Vimlesh Mehta, Mumbai

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

ITA 3725/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit(Cc)-8(3) Santosh Vimlesh Mehta Room No. 661 6Th Floor, Aaykar 10, Mumbadevi Road, Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan No. Abhpm 0883 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra Mahajan, SR-DR

Section 10(38)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH

Jsp Projects (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-13, Delhi/South Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3594/DEL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2014-15] M/S Jsp Projects Private Dcit, Central Circle-13, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax Building, Limited, C/O- Ca Vaibhav Goel, 75, Vs E-2 Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Navyug Market, First Floor, Extension, Delhi-110055 Ghaziabad(Up) Uttar Pradesh-201001 Pan-Aadcj0677L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Ca & Shri Aditya Garg, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.01.2026 Order Per Amitabh Shukla, Am

Section 127(2)Section 153CSection 63Section 65BSection 68

existence of any incriminating material qua the appellant, found during the course of search conducted on Alankit Group. That, ledgers produced during the reassessment proceedings u/s 153C cannot per se be regarded as incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer; That the assessment order passed under section 153C

Rakesh Divedi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3290/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalrakesh Divedi, Income Tax Officer, 87, Triveni Apartments, Ward-43(6), Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi - Vs. 110034. Pan-Apcpd9179A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Pranshu Singhal, Ca Assessee By & Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 07.03.2025 In Appeal No.40/10204/2018-19 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(3) U/S 143(3) Of The Act (‘The Act’ For Short) Dated 20.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Proprietor Of M/S Triambkay Gauri Impex. The Information Was Received By The Ao From Investigation Wing That There Were Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assesse With Icici Bank, However, Income Of The Assessee & Gross Receipt Has Not Rakesh Divedi Vs. Income Tax Officer Commensurate With The Cash So Deposited, Therefore, After Recording The Reason U/S 147, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 31.03.2016 After Obtaining Statutory Approval From The Pcit. Thereafter, Assessment Was Completed Vide Order Dated 20.12.2016 Wherein Total Addition Of Rs. 5,20,88,345/- Was Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Cash Deposited In The Bank Accounts By Holding The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits. 3. Against The Said Order, Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Who Vide Impugned Order Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee & Directed The Ao To Make Addition Of Peak Credit Of The Total Deposits In The Bank Accounts.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

technical reasons, and later notice was issued and assessments were taken up afresh-After considering submissions of assessee and documents produced in reassessment proceedings, AO added back a sum of Rs.1,35,00,000/- - CIT(A) held against assessee an legality of reassessment notice but allowed assessee's appeal

Ravindra Kumar Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle 5(3)(1), G B Nagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the impugned

ITA 2760/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaravindra Kumar Gupta Vs. Dcit, Circle 5(3)(1) C/O Ca Vaibhav Goel Gb Nagar 75 Navyug Market Aaykar Bhavan, A-2D, 1St Floor, Ghaziabad Sector – 24 Uttar Pradesh – 201002 Noida, Up- 201307 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahmpg9176E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vaibhav Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr

Section 132Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

passing order u/s 148A(a) of the Act. Accordingly, in our considered view notice u/s 148 is bad in law and thus, the entire reassessment proceedings is held as invalid and is hereby quashed. The cross objections of the assessee taken in ground of appeal no.1

Gyan Enterprises Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 10(2), New Delhi

ITA 2401/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Chandan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

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

Page 1 ITA No.2401/Del/2025 Gyan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2012-13) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI

Ktm Impex Private Limited, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2377/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

third parties without granting the Appellant opportunity to cross-examine them, which vitiates the assessment. ITA No.2377/Del/2025 4. Loan was repaid in full before reassessment proceedings - The loan taken from Highrise Securities & Trading Private Limited amounting to Rs.50,00,000 in question was fully repaid by the Appellant during ... opportunity to cross-examine them, which vitiates the assessment. Ld. AR further heavily relied on his submissions that loan was repaid in full before reassessment proceedings. He submitted that the loan taken from Highrise Securities & Trading Private Limited amounting to Rs.50,00,000 in question was fully repaid

Mittal Homes Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-17(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2328/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: # Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

limitation | | | - 8. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee pressed Legal Ground No. 4, challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings as the notice u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. It was submitted that in view of the judgment ... Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal [(2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)], the reassessment proceedings initiated under the old or un-amended provisions of section 148, read with the extensions granted under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 ("TOLA"), are without

Assistat Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Brij Bhushan Gupta, Delhi

In the result, the cross objections for AY 2013-14 filed by the assessee is

ITA 5899/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 3

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Brij Bhushan Gupta, Delhi

In the result, the cross objections for AY 2013-14 filed by the assessee is

ITA 5891/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 3

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Om Prakash Arora, Connaught Place

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5031/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

circumstances of the case and in law, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] vide order dated 28.08.2024, erred in upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") to be valid in the present case, without appreciating that the same ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings as valid without appreciating that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-18, Delhi without having

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Om Prakash Arora, Connaught Place

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5029/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Best Bull Stock Trading Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2954/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153(6)Section 153A

assessee referring to the following decisions submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) do not have power to issue directions to the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings u/s.148 of the Act :- i. ITO vs Murlidhar Bhagwan Das: [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC) ii. Munish Chander Khurana vs ITO: iii. DCIT ... orders of the authorities below. The issue as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) is empowered to give directions to the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings u/s.148 of the Act, came up for consideration before the coordinate Bench of ITAT Jaipur in the case of DCIT Vs. Sh. Vaibhav Banka