← 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

DCIT, Circle- 24(2), New Delhi vs. Superstar Innovation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 834/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.834/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-24(2), R. No. 328, C.R Building, I.P Estate, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi बनाम Vs. M/S. Superstar Innovation Pvt. Ltd., D-6/6032/2, Ground Floor, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabcs 7795 Q Co No. 141/Del/2023 (A.Y.2009-10) In Ita No. 834/Del/2018 M/S. Superstar Innovation Pvt. Ltd., D-6/6032/2, Ground Floor, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabcs 7795 Q बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-24(2), R. No. 328, C.R Building, I.P Estate, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, S/Shri Somil Agarwal, Deepesh Garg & Shrey Jain, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Maninder Kaur & Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 04/09/2025

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, S/Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Maninder Kaur &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopened after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. Since, the assessment was reopened beyond four years, the first proviso to section 147 of the Act gets triggered. Accordingly, no action u/s. 147 of the Act can be undertaken unless the AO is able to show

Mahajan Conveyer Industries, Kangra vs. ITO-Ward, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1056/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

For Appellant: Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43(1)Section 80Section 801C

most cryptic finding, without appreciating the submissions and the binding judicial decisions, in correct perspective. 3. That the embargo put by first proviso to Section 147, as applicable to this case, when not complied with by Ld. A.O., the Ld. CIT(A) gravely erred to ignore this crucial aspect

Mahajan Conveyer Industries, Kangra vs. ITO-Ward, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1055/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

For Appellant: Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43(1)Section 80Section 801C

most cryptic finding, without appreciating the submissions and the binding judicial decisions, in correct perspective. 3. That the embargo put by first proviso to Section 147, as applicable to this case, when not complied with by Ld. A.O., the Ld. CIT(A) gravely erred to ignore this crucial aspect

Mahajan Conveyer Industries, Kangra vs. ITO-Ward, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1054/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

For Appellant: Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43(1)Section 80Section 801C

most cryptic finding, without appreciating the submissions and the binding judicial decisions, in correct perspective. 3. That the embargo put by first proviso to Section 147, as applicable to this case, when not complied with by Ld. A.O., the Ld. CIT(A) gravely erred to ignore this crucial aspect