← All Phrases

“beyond four years”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 147536 judgments

The decision most relied on for beyond four years is ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (103 ITR 437), cited in 721 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on beyond four years

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.

CIT v. Foramer France
264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court
253
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

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.

CIT v. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd.
237 ITR 13 · 1999 · Supreme Court
120
citing judgments

An audit objection that points out a factual error or omission overlooked by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment constitutes tangible material or information justifying the reopening of assessment under Section 147. This principle applies even for reopening beyond four years and is not considered a mere change of opinion.

5. PCIT v. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court
392 ITR 444 · 2017 · High Court
111
citing judgments

For valid initiation of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer must possess tangible material and apply independent mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. Reassessment cannot be based on mere borrowed satisfaction or unverified information without proper scrutiny.

Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
301 ITR 407 · 2008 · High Court
107
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is considered to have applied their mind and formed an opinion on an issue if the assessee fully disclosed all material facts and responded to queries during the original assessment, even without explicit discussion in the assessment order. Reopening an assessment beyond four years on such an issue without new tangible material constitutes a mere change of opinion and is impermissible under Section 147.

PCIT v. NC Cables Ltd.
391 ITR 11 · 2017 · High Court
104
citing judgments

Approval for reassessment under Section 151 requires the approving authority to apply its mind and form an opinion, not merely endorse it mechanically. Additions under Section 68 cannot be made based on suspicion alone and require conclusive evidence.

Judgments citing beyond four years

Vir Alloys and Steel Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, with directions as aforesaid

ITA 2557/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Akhilesh Sindhu
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

notice under Section 148 was Vir Alloys and Steel Company Pvt. Ltd Vir Alloys and Steel Company Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 2489 & issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment issued beyond four years from

Vir Alloys and Steel Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, with directions as aforesaid

ITA 2489/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Akhilesh Sindhu
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

notice under Section 148 was Vir Alloys and Steel Company Pvt. Ltd Vir Alloys and Steel Company Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 2489 & issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment issued beyond four years from

Anil Singh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 49(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.531/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Anil Singh Vs Ito Ward-49(1), Kolkata/Nfac 4, Railway Gate, Lalkuthi, Kamarhati, Kolkata Pan No. : Bflps 0954 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Jcit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.07.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 168 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr.Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, Delay Of 168 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That This Is A Case Of Reopening & Issuance Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Notice

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sima Das Biswas, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

notice is issued. Section 149 of the old regime primarily provided two time limits: (i) four years for all situations and (ii) beyond four years and within six years if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment amounted to Rupees one lakh or more. After 1 April

Tharmaraj Gopi, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.682/Chny/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Tharmaraj Gopi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, Bharathidasan 1St Street, Non-Corp Ward-8(2), Kandasamy Nagar, Chennai. Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056. [Pan: Akqpg3889D]

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)

Tribunal has applied the correct principle of law and held as follows: "But whether recourse to section 147 could be made beyond four years is the real question in the present appeal. Circumstances for extending limitation beyond four years do not exist in the facts of the present case ... Gajanand Meena, Deputy CIT (No. 2)[2001] 251 ITR 416, the Assessing Officer cannot act in the matter of reopening of assessment beyond four years, unless he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully

Etc Electric Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 342/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(a)Section 149(1)(b)

notice is issued. Section 149 of the old regime primarily provided two time limits: (i) four years for all situations and (ii) beyond four years and within six years if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment amounted to Rupees one lakh or more. After 1 April

Tremendous Mining and Minerals Pvt Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 157/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Tremendous Mining & Vs Dcit, Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3, Cabin No.-1, 1205, New Delhi. 89-Hemkunth Chamber, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019. Pan: Aacct8840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwini Kumar, Ca & Shri Ankur Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.01.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-23/10303/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 24.12.2019 Passed U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Central Circle- 3, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Ashwini Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

through the same, we find that the reasons have been recorded for AY 2012-13. Then, certainly, the reopening is for a period beyond four years. The ld. AR has submitted that there is nothing in the reopening as to what was the incriminating material which was left

S.K. Bhatia & Sons HUF, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1800/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 S. K. Bhatia & Sons Huf, Vs Income Tax Officer, A-197, Whs Timber Market, Kirti Ward-34(1), Nagar, Moti Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi-110015 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavhs7168G Assessee By: Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca & Sh. Aditya Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073655510(1) Dated 24.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Ayush Garg, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

relation to which such notice has been issued is more than four years prior to the date of the reopening, i.e., it is beyond four years from the expiry of the assessment year in question and is clearly therefore, time barred in terms of the first proviso to section ... involved was that for the purpose of section 151(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 since the reopening of the assessment was beyond four years, it had to have the prior approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, and there was no such approval in the present case

Income Tax Officer Ward 10(1) Delhi, Delhi vs. Aruna Gupta, Delhi

ITA 687/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 687/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs Aruna Gupta, Ward-10(1), B-1/45, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110029 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakpg2642L Co No. 49/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Aruna Gupta, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-1/45, Safdarjung Enclave, Ward-10(1), New Delhi-110029 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakpg2642L Assessee By: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.07.2025 Order This Revenue’S Appeal & Assessee’S Cross Objection Co No. 49/Del/2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071333531(1) Dated 18.12.2024, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

each of these cases, the relevant assessment year (AY) in relation to which such notice has been issued is i.e., it is beyond four years from the expiry of the assessment year in question and is clearly therefore, time barred in terms of the first proviso to section ... involved was that for the purpose of section 151(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 since the reopening of the assessment was beyond four years, it had to have the prior approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, and there was no such approval in the present case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections

ITA 993/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

19th December, 2016 and the reopening notice u/s 148 was issued on 19th March, 2021 which has been issued beyond four years, on the basis of statement of two parties recorded behind the back of the assessee by the ITO, Ward 2(4), Abohar and on the basis of information

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 992/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

19th December, 2016 and the reopening notice u/s 148 was issued on 19th March, 2021 which has been issued beyond four years, on the basis of statement of two parties recorded behind the back of the assessee by the ITO, Ward 2(4), Abohar and on the basis of information

Elsie Hubald, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 955/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: 19.06.2025
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 69

notice is issued. Section 149 of the old regime primarily provided two time limits: (i) four years for all situations and (ii) beyond four years and within six years if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment amounted to Rupees one lakh or more. After 1 April

Avi Aggarwal, H.No. 171-R, Model Town, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Assessment Unit NFAC, Delhi, Jao ITO Ward6(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab

ITA 971/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

assessment was framed u/s 143(1) still there has to be a reason to belief. Since the assessment is sought to be reopened, beyond four years. The Counsel relied upon the judgement in the case of 'Samrat Plywood Ltd.' in ITA No. 514/Chandi/2017 vide order dated 25.01.2021. He further, relied

New Rampgreen Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 161/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) New Rampgreen Technologies Ito Ward 7(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 126 Centre Gd Ambedkar Marg Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Wadala So,Mumbai-400 031. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aadcv9341F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Nikunj Jain
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. and hence allowed. Section 148 clearly states that to reopen an assessment beyond four years, there should be failure on the part of appellant to furnish the details. In this case, the assessment is reopened beyond four years where the earlier assessment

ITO Ward - 20(1), New Delhi vs. Plus Corporate Ventures Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the assessment order passed in the present case is quashed as invalid

ITA 9441/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

within four years. (ii) Where facts material for assessment are not disclosed in the course of assessment, whether within or beyond four years. 6 Supervening these two requirements in the alternative, the initial condition is that the assessing officer has reason to believe that there is escapement of income ... consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 10 As the case pertains to a period beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year, for issuing the notice u/s 148, necessary approval / sanction may kindly be accorded by the Pr. Commissioner

Bardc Bank, Bhatkal vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 294/PAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.294/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) Bardc Bank Bhatkal, Vs National E – Pld Bank, Main Road, Assessment Centre . Uttara Kannada, Delhi-110001 Bhatkal S.O. Karnataka-581320. Pan .No. Aaaap1731G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee made submissions on the validity of reassessment proceedings beyond four years and further the notice was issued u/sec 148 of the Act after lapse of four years from the end of the assessment year and also

Naveen Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-26(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 592/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153C

occasion to consider an identical approval and held as under:- “5.3. We find that the reopening in the instant case has been made beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year which requires sanction of approval from the ld. PCIT u/s.151(1) of the Act. We find

ACIT 2 2 1, Mumbai vs. Jyoti Structures Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2661/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 68

challenged before the ld. CIT(A). It was strongly contended that the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27/03/2018 is issued beyond four years from the end of assessment year and, therefore, first proviso to Section 147 of the Act is applicable. It was also pointed out that

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-27, Delhi vs. Nkg Infrastructure Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5109/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

already assessed u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act and it is fact on record that the case was reopened beyond four years. Therefore, the proviso to section 147 comes into play and for reopening of the assessment, the Assessing Officer has to brought on record ... Assessing Officer has to record the reasons of failure on the part of the assessee particularly when the assessment involved is beyond four years. In this case, the assessment was reopened beyond 7 years. We observed that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO, Ward No.16

Nkg Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-27, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4749/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

already assessed u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act and it is fact on record that the case was reopened beyond four years. Therefore, the proviso to section 147 comes into play and for reopening of the assessment, the Assessing Officer has to brought on record ... Assessing Officer has to record the reasons of failure on the part of the assessee particularly when the assessment involved is beyond four years. In this case, the assessment was reopened beyond 7 years. We observed that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO, Ward No.16

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Mass Communication Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 3130/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

length and have perused the material available on the record. We have perused the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment beyond four years. The reason recorded by the AO for reopening the case, nowhere, mentions that there is any failure on the part of the assessee