“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

Jayantilal Purohit, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5684/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 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

Jayantilal Purohit, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5683/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 69

Shri Vipul Bansal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5628/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 69C

availed artificial profit or loss through Client Code Modification (CCM) in share transactions carried out in the F&O segment. Pursuant to the reopening, reassessment proceedings were completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 vide order dated 19.12.2017, whereby the Assessing Officer recomputed the total income ... assessee at Rs.2,73,92,450/-. 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that certain brokers were misusing the client code modification facility provided by the stock exchange to create fictitious profits and losses. According to the Assessing Officer, the modus operandi involved execution of trades at different

Vaibhav Dwarkanath Warekar, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 5432/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarvaibhav Dwarkanath Warekar 1 Midland Chs, Sector-9A Vashi, Navi Mumbai ............... Appellant Pan: Aalpw3682P

For Appellant: Shri Laxman SutarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

justified in the present case. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following the binding precedent in appellant's own case for earlier reassessment proceedings where the CIT(A) had restricted profit estimation to 0.25% of turnover.” 3. Ground No. 1, raised in assessee’s appeal, was not pressed

Deepak Ghanshamdas Takhtani, Khar vs. Income Tax Ward Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed, and the impugned reassessment proceedings are hereby quashed

ITA 5382/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Adverting To The Merits Of The Addition, We Deem It Appropriate, As A Matter Of Judicial Propriety & Settled Legal Discipline, To First Examine The Jurisdictional Challenge Raised By The Assessee, Since If The Assumption Of Jurisdiction Itself Is Found To Be Infirm, The Entire Superstructure Of The Reassessment Would Necessarily Collapse.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

assessment year 2017- 18. 2. At the outset, it may be noted that the assessee has assailed the impugned reassessment proceedings on twin 2 Deepak Ghanshamdas Takhtani grounds. Firstly, on a pure question of jurisdiction, the assessee has challenged the very validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings on the ground ... academic in nature and are, therefore, not adjudicated upon. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed, and the impugned reassessment proceedings are hereby quashed. Order pronounced on 30th December, 2025. (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 30/12/2025 KARUNA, sr.ps 6 Deepak Ghanshamdas Takhtani Copy

Rekha Kishore Shah (Legal Heir of Kishor Dhirajlal Shah ), Mumbai vs. ACIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4409/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Malav P. ShethFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment proceedings as valid without appreciating that the learned AO had not disposed off the specific objections raised (Year of purchase & ownership of the three Galas) by the appellant that the reasons ... prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s, 147 as valid merely based on the incorrect information available on record without due application of mind to the facts of the case

Rajesh M Jain (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4220/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 143(3)Section 144

total income of Rs. 13,20,660/-, but against the notice u/s. 148 assessee did not file any fresh return. During the course of reassessment proceedings also towards the notice u/s. 142(1), the assessee failed to comply. Finally, the assessment order came to be completed u/s.144

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Das Offshore Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 2944/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148A

Since the addition itself does not survive on merits, the legal grounds raised by the assessee in its cross objection challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act are rendered academic and are accordingly dismissed as infructuous, leaving the issues raised therein open

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Avin Rajendrakumar Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 84/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee against the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2014–15, arising out of the reassessment proceedings completed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The Revenue, through its grounds of appeal, has assailed ... bogus and taxable under section 68 of the Act. The assessee, by way of cross objection, has challenged the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. 3. The brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that the assessee is an individual who filed

JCIT(OSD), Delhi vs. Aurionpro Toshi Automatic Systems Private Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 674/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69C

Act/show cause notice were issued from time to time. In compliance to said notices, the assessee has submitted its reply during the reassessment proceedings. As per assessee’s request, the VC conducted on 13.02.2024. The AO noticed from the submission/details/documents furnished by the assessee that it had taken loan ... capital was made in M/s Odisha Finelease Pvt. Ltd. was for providing accommodation entries by Mr. Aditya Jain only. Therefore, the AO completed the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 29.02.2024 with the addition of Rs.72,83,830/- u/s 68 of the Act on account

G S Automobiles Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, Delhi

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

ITA 4289/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmang.S. Automobiles Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 6, B – 26, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase Ii, Delhi. Delhi – 110 020. (Pan : Aadcg1150B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.12.2025 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), Delhi – 24 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 19.06.2025 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Orders Passed By Ld. Ao U/S 153C Of The Act As Well As Appellate Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A) Are Bad In Law & Are Passed In Contravention Of Prevailing Law As Well As Facts Of The Case, Therefore Liable To Be Annulled. 2. That Assumption Of Jurisdiction Of Ld. Ao In Consequence Of Order Passed By Ld. Pcit U/S 127(3) Of The Act Of The Act Is Illegal & Not Tenable Under The Law Because Of Said Order Being Mechanical & Being Passed

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 68Section 69C

reproduce the relevant findings of the Hon’ble Court as under:- 48. “In terms of the Second Proviso to Section 153A, all assessment or reassessment proceedings relating to the six AYs' or the "relevant assessment year" pending on the date of search are statutorily envisaged to abate. Abatement is envisioned

Sh. Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-34(5), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3671/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(3)Section 271A

Titan Hydraulics (India) and also engaged in the business of Manufacturing of Bread in the Name and Style of M/s Komal foods. The reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) was initiated in the A. Y. 2018-19 on the basis of information received ... Previous year 2018-19 relevant to A.Y 2018-19, Assessee had not filed the return of income due to his Poor health. Later, The reassessment proceedings were initiated u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) on the basis of information received from Canara Bank, that

Sh. Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-34(5), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3670/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(3)Section 271A

Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad vs. Vikas Sharma, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 3525/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

having been issued beyond the surviving period that ended on 22.06.2022, is ex facie barred by limitation and void ab initio. The entire reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are non est in law. The subsequent participation or inaction of the assessee cannot cure this foundational jurisdictional defect. Hence, the proceedings

Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad vs. Vikas Sharma, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 3495/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Income Tax Officer, Rohtak vs. Pankaj Jain, Rohtak

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

ITA 2295/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaincome Tax Officer, Vs. Pankaj Jain, Rohtak. 123/34, Vishwakarma Kathmandi, Rohtak – 124 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Azupj6345A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shri Naveen Gupta, Advocate Shri Nakul Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora,Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.12.2025 Order 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 04.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Upholding The Validity Of The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Without The Proper & Mandatory Compliance With The Provisions Of Section 148A(B). 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Law & On Facts By Failing To Consider That The Then Ao Has Given Notice U/S 148A(B) To Assessee On 31.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri Shri Naveen Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora,Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 292BSection 37(1)

which is violation of the provisions of the Act. 6. Ld. CIT (A) observed that after committing series of blunders stated above, in the reassessment proceedings, the AO proceeded to disallow purchase of Rs.5,42,96,886/- as bogus purchase. However, the assessment was not reopened for that reason

Salim, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5816/DEL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

Delete any Grounds of Appeal aforesaid. Hence the order is liable to be quashed. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.1 ... clearly demonstrate that the assessee had responded to the notice issued under section 148 and had also appeared before the Assessing Officer during the reassessment proceedings. Further, notices under section 142(1) were duly issued and served. The subsequent non-compliance on the part of the assessee compelled the Assessing

Jagbir Saroha, Sonipat vs. ITO, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4759/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

since no return of income was filed, the source of cash deposits of INR 1,53,98,000/- remained unverified. Therefore, reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated after recording satisfaction and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2021 after obtaining approval from the Competent

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 344/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

partly allowed by this bench of Tribunal, 4. Subsequently, based on the information received from ADIT(Inv)- Unit 4, Kolkata vide report dated 22.03.2018, reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act were initiated by issuing notice under section 148 on 13.09.2018 after seeking prior approval of the competent authority ... Aggrievedby the above said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), where the assessee filed detailed submissions both on validity of reassessment proceedings and merits of the case. Learned CIT(A) was not convinced with the detailed submissions of the assessee and holding the reassessment proceedings

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 343/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68