← All Phrases

“first proviso to section 147”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 147494 judgments

The decision most relied on for first proviso to section 147 is Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332), cited in 695 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on first proviso to section 147

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.

Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha
79 ITR 603 · 1971 · Supreme Court
363
citing judgments

A valid reassessment under Section 147 requires concrete 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment, not mere suspicion or a desire to conduct fishing and roving enquiries. If the first proviso to Section 147 applies, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, not just a mere charge of bogus expenses.

PCIT v. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd.
465 ITR 101 · 2024 · High Court
277
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, the commencement point for calculating the six or ten assessment year block period is the date of issuing the Section 153C notice, or the date of the satisfaction note/handing over of books, as clarified by the first proviso to Section 153C(1).

Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO
130 ITR 1 · 1981 · Supreme Court
234
citing judgments

A mere charge of bogus expenses, without a specific finding that the assessee failed to disclose material facts, is insufficient to justify reassessment beyond four years under the first proviso to Section 147. Courts can examine the materiality and relevance of facts forming the 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment, ensuring it is based on reasonable grounds.

New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DCIT
116 Taxmann.com 151 · 2020 · Supreme Court
139
citing judgments

Reassessment initiated under Section 147/148 is invalid if the Assessing Officer relies on material obtained post-recording of reasons, or if it amounts to a mere change of opinion on facts fully and truly disclosed by the assessee during the original assessment. An assessee's obligation extends only to the full and true disclosure of primary facts, not to provide further assistance or inferences.

German Remedies Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
287 ITR 494 · 2006 · High Court
89
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are not justified when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of all material facts, supported by statutory and tax audit reports, even if a different view could be taken on the valuation of closing stock. Such reopening constitutes a mere change of opinion.

Atma Ram Properties Private Ltd. v. Deputy CIT
343 ITR 141 · 2012 · High Court
83
citing judgments

An assessment cannot be reopened under Section 147 after four years if the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of all material facts, even if a claim made was later found incorrect, and the reasons recorded do not specify a failure to disclose.

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Deputy CIT
340 ITR 53 · 2012 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Failure to fully and truly disclose material facts, for the purpose of reassessment beyond four years, extends beyond the income tax return to omissions during assessment proceedings. Mere disclosure of a transaction does not constitute true and full disclosure if underlying material facts are withheld.

Judgments citing first proviso to section 147

Emm Aar Tourism Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 8(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 5790/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2010-11 Emm Aar Tourism P. Ltd. Ito Ward 8(2), New Delhi 10685, Jhandewalan Road, Nabi Karim, New Delhi 110055 Vs. Pan Aacce 1918 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shikar Garg, Ca Shri Manoj Garg, Ca Revenue For : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-24 New Delhi Dated 11.04.2019 For Ay 2010-11. 2. The Sole Legal Ground Of Assessee Is As Follows:- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao For Initiation Of Reassessment Proceedings U/S. 147/148 Of The Income Tax Act. 3. The Ld. Assessee Representative Submitted That For Ay 2010-11 The Assessee Submitted Return Of Income On 25.09.2010 Declaring Loss Of Rs. 46,894/- Which Was Processed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. Drawing Our Attention Towards Pages 27 To 32 Of Assessee Paper Book The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessing Officer Received Information From The Investigation Wing Which Conducted Search & Seizure Operation On 18.11.2015 On Pradeep Kumar Jindal Group. He Further Elaborated That On Receipt Of Information The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons For Initiated Of Reassessment Proceedings On 29.03.2017 & Obtained Approval Of Acit As Well As Pcit On The Very Same Date. The Ld. Ar Drawing Our Attention Towards Page 28 Of The Approval Note Submitted That The Ld. Acit While Granting Approval Noted “Yes, It Is A Fit Case” & The 1

For Appellant: Shri Shikar Garg, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

spell out all the reasons and grounds available with the AO for re- opening the assessment - especially in those cases where the first proviso to Section 147 is attracted. The reasons to believe ought to also paraphrase any investigation report which may form the basis of the reasons

Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3840/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, 117, Hans Bhawan, Ward-24(3), 1 Bsz Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aalcs4760R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First Of All, We Have Heard The Arguments Of Both The Representatives On Legal Ground No.1 Of The Assessee Which Reads As Under:- “3. The Initiation Of The Proceedings U/S 148 & The Consequent Order Us 147 Are Bad In Law As A) The Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 148 Are Contrary To Provisions Of Law B) The Mandatory Procedure Laid Down In The Act Has Not Been Followed. C) The Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Time Barred As Issued After 4 Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year Where The Case Has Already Been Assessed U/S 143(3). D) The Approval Of Addl. Cit & Pcit Is Bad In Law & Mechanical Without Application Of Mind & Has Been Taken Without Bringing To Their Notice Material Facts Of The Case. E) The Information Has Been Collected Behind The Back Of The Assessee & The Assessee Was Never Confronted With The Same Nor An Opportunity Provided For Cross-Examination Of Jain Brothers, Alleged Intermediary & The Relevant Seized Material Relied Upon Has Not Been Provided To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

material not produced by the assessee in those original assessment proceedings on the basis of which the allegation as per requirement of first proviso to section 147 of the Act could be established. 10. The ld. AR pointed out that at the very initial state, the assessee filed objection ... void ab initio and bad in law being initiated without complying with the mandatory provisions of first proviso to section 147 of the Act. 15. Since, by the earlier part of this order, we have quashed the reassessment proceedings and reassessment order while adjudicating the legal ground No.3

Pride Paradise and Development Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office -WD 7(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.50/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Pride Paradise & बिधम/ Ito, Ward-7(3)(1) Room No. 126J, 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 601, Orbit Plaza, New Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Prabhadevi Road, Lines, Mumbai-400020. Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp3042N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Mahender Ahuja सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.11.2021 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao By Which The Ao Has Made An Addition Of Rs.6,00,000/-. 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay. 2007-08 On 31.10.2007 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,820/-. Thereafter, The Return Of Income Was Scrutized U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Vide Order Dated 09.12.2009 Accepting The Return Of Income. Later On, The Ao Received An Information From Dgit (Inv.), Mumbai Pursuant To A Search Carried

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mahender Ahuja
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

that original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act has been passed; and four (4) years have already elapsed/expired, therefore, first proviso to section 147 of the Act comes into play, and therefore, the AO ought not to have reopened the assessment without spelling out in the reasons recorded