“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

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Nawal Kumar Kanodia, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1952/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153CSection 250oSection 69A

treating the same as void-ab-initio without properly appreciate that the facts of the case and the legal validity of the reassessment proceedings. 2 Nawal Kumar Kanodia 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.07.2019 declaring total income

Suresh Kumar Poddar, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 63(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1542/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 111ASection 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 250o

search no incriminating material is found, in case of completed/anak assessment, the only remedy avail- able to the Revenue would be to initiate the reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfillment of the condi- tions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Reve

Parameshappa Shiddlingappa Kittad, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

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

ITA 2463/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT(DR)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

assessee throughout the proceedings shows a consistent pattern of negligence. The assessee did not respond to the statutory notices issued during the reassessment proceedings, did not file the return in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act, and even before the learned CIT(A) the appeal

Parameshappa Shiddlingappa, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

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

ITA 2462/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT(DR)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

Mrs. Surekha Legal Representative of Late Shri. Devaraj, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2419/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Mrs. Surekha (Legal Representative Of Late Shri Devaraj, Since Dead) No.112, 1St Main, Ramarao Layout Vs. Ito Bsk 3Rd Phase, 3Rd Stage Ward 7(2)(5) Bengaluru 560 085 Bengaluru Pan No :Asvps2939R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Balachandran, A.R. Respondent By : Sri N. Balusamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026

For Appellant: Sri Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Balusamy, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 250

legal representatives under section 148 but by way of notice to furnish return under section 142 which again relates to a subsequent stage of reassessment proceedings. The judgment in the case of Alamelu Veerappan (supra) provides that notice issued to the legal representatives beyond the period of limitation prescribed

Senthilkumar Thangaraj, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8221/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Himanshu Gandhi

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

Rs.1,55,330/- under Chapter VI-A of the Act against the gross total income of Rs.8,57,211/-. Subsequently, the Ld. AO initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on the ground that income amounting to Rs.2,03,816/- had escaped assessment. During

Harsha Bojarao Devraj, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8012/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora

Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

Assessment Year 2017- 2018. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.8012/Mum/2025: “GROUND NO. 1: REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 Assessment Year 2017-2018 ARE VOID The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act, which are void ... grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal before the Learned CIT(A). Even the legal Grounds raised by the Assessee challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings have not been adjudicated upon. Irrespective of non-appearance of an Assessee before the Learned CIT(A), the Learned CIT(A) is required

Jayesh Kanungo HUF, Khetwadi, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(1), Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6855/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Bijayananda Prusethjayesh Kanungo Huf Ito -19(2)(1), Mumbai 203, Rajgiri Apartment, A Wing, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 13Thkhetwadi Back Road, Mumbai Parel Mumbai 400012 400004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabhj8492E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar Singh a/w. Ms. Asifa KhanFor Respondent: Shri. Nakul Agrawal Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Mumbai Region, the jurisdiction over the assessee, having PIN Code No. 400004, lies with ITO, Ward-19(2)(1), Mumbai. Thus, the notice initiating reassessment proceedings was issued by a non- jurisdictional Assessing Officer. We further note that the assessee had raised a specific objection regarding lack of jurisdiction vide ... requirement, and such notice must be issued by the Assessing Officer having lawful jurisdiction over the assessee. In the present case, the initiation of reassessment proceedings by ITO, Ward-19(3)(1), Mumbai, who admittedly did 11 ITA No. 6855/Mum/2025 AY 2014-15 Jayesh Kanungo HUF not have jurisdiction over

Shairul Impex, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1)), Mumbai

ITA 6613/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 147Section 148Section 151A

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in upholding the Reassessment proceedings for as the Notice under section 148 of the Act is issued in violation of section 151A of the Income ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the Reassessment proceedings for as the Notice under section 148 of the Act is issued in violation of CBDT Circular 19 of 2019. 1.3. That on the facts and circumstances

Deepak Mahadeo Bhoir, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3597/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardeepak Mahadeo Bhoir, Income Tax Officer, C/O Bharat Kumar, 317, Ward 42(1)(2), Prasad Chamber, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 004 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Ajupb 7841H Appellant By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ca Respondent By : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2. Before We Proceed To Decide The Substantive Issue Arising For Consideration, It Is Necessary To Provide A Brief Factual Background. This Appeal Was Earlier Disposed Of By The Coordinate Bench Vide Order Dated 12.12.2024. Subsequently, Assessee Filed A Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification/Recall Of The Appellate Order On The Ground That While Deciding The Appeal, The Bench Had Failed To Decide Ground No. 2.A & 2.B. While Deciding The Miscellaneous Application, The Bench Having Found Merit In The Submissions Of Assessee, Recalled The Order For The Limited Purpose Of Deciding Ground No. 2.A & 2.B Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal. This Is How The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149

Rajeev Bansal (supra) came to the conclusion that the remainder period with the Assessment Officer was twenty-nine days from 01/06/2021 when the reassessment proceedings commenced for issuing notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. The limitation for passing of the order under Section 148A(d) expired on 12/07/2022 ... show cause notice on the above ground. The other contentions raised by the Petitioner are kept open. 16. If the timeline of reassessment proceedings in assessee’s case is kept in juxtaposition to the facts involved in case of Gurpreet Singh vs. DCIT (supra) and Hitesh Ramniklal Shah (supra

Ampi Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2831/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: the Bench that the re-opening of

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 69C

cannot be stated to be empowered to make a roving enquiry into other issues which according to him came to his notice during the reassessment proceedings. The foundation of a reassessment proceeding is a valid notice and it this notice is held to be invalid the entire edifice sought

Gopal Anil Kumar, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 862/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 37Section 44ASection 68

Central), the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of such approval is void-ab-initio and accordingly vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings. The AR accordingly prayed that the assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act dated 30/03/2023 may be set aside & quashed. 7. Per contra ... April, 2021. Further, the ld. DR submitted that merely because there is an inadvertent error in the approval, the entire reassessment proceedings cannot be quashed. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee in the present case is engaged in the civil

Mamatha Mahesh Shetty, Chikkamagaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 2382/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250

have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The undisputed facts are that the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated on the basis of information that the assessee had purchased agricultural land ... response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed a return declaring NIL income. During the reassessment proceedings, it was explained that the land was purchased out of the funds of her husband, who is engaged in business and agricultural activities, and that the investment

Bhawarlal S Jain, Vijayapura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 2138/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra BR, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain VP, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

source of income brought on record by the Revenue. The turnover declared in the original return is from wholesale trading, and even in the reassessment proceedings the assessee has consistently maintained that the cash deposits represent business receipts arising from such trading activity. 12.1 It is not in dispute that

Pakarahalli Narayanappa Srinivasgowda, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1373/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)

Section 148Section 250Section 254

learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. The learned AR of the assessee before us submitted that for the reassessment proceeding initiated during the period 01-04-2021 to 30- 06-2021 under the old provision of section 148 of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme ... section 148 of the Act is invalid and void ab initio. 10. On the contrary, the learned DR strongly supported the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The learned DR submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was in accordance with the directions laid down

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore vs. Raj Diamonds, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed &

ITA 1361/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 250

Report(STR) concerning transaction between an individual named Bhanwar Lal Gurjar with M/s Tanman Jewels Pvt Ltd. Further, the ld. Submitted that the entire reassessment proceedings are purely based on guess & surmises and the Authorities below did not find out any defects in the evidences produced before them establishing ... appear before the Assessing ITA No.1361/Bang/2025 & CO 20/Bang/2025 M/s. Raj Diamonds, Mumbai Page 18 of 18 Officer during the course of the reassessment proceedings and failed to prove genuineness of the purchases, the Assessing Officer made the additions on account of bogus purchases. Further, in our opinion the decision

Sachinkumar Subrai Kanse, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 8140/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

grounds of appeal on merit. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad in law and required to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld AO in initiating reassessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s 148 by JAO in violation of CBDT notification dated 29.03.2022 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Sachinkumar Subrai Kanse, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer 42(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 8139/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

Jignesh Natverlal Patel (Represnted by Late Natverlal Nanubhai Patel), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6769/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawaljignesh Natverlal Patel Vs Ito Ward-24(3)(1), Mumbai (Represented By Late Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Natverlal Nanubhai Patel) Mumbai-400012 401 Adarsh Building, Rto Four Bunglows, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 Pan:Aaapp1767B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shende (Sr DR)

Section 139(1)Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 250

Jignesh Natverlal Patel (Represented by Late Natverlal Nanubhai Patel) relevant assessment year was contrary to law and, therefore, vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings. 5. In furtherance of his submissions, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Alag Property ... notice dated 30.06.2021 and the subsequent order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, it is evident that the approval for initiation of reassessment proceedings beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year was granted by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-20, Mumbai

ACIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Delhi Control Devices Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5909/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Year : 2018-19

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

Section 14Section 147Section 53

revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether Ld. CIT(A) has erred in misconstruing the nature and purpose of the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s. 147 of the Act. The reassessment was initiated well before the finalization of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), solely for the purpose ... facts, in holding that the reassessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act, is invalid merely on the ground that the reassessment proceedings were initiated during the pendency of the CIRP under the IBC. 3. Whether Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the mere pendency of CIRP proceedings does