← 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

DCIT CC -4(4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3614/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

counsel for the assessee submitted that as per proviso to section 147 of the Act, assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the material facts fully and truly ... reasons recorded there is no allegation of failure on the part of the assessee, hence, the assessment could not be reopened beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions: • New Delhi Television Ltd. Vs. DCIT

DCIT CC -4(4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3610/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

counsel for the assessee submitted that as per proviso to section 147 of the Act, it assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the material facts fully ... reasons recorded there is no allegation of failure on the part of the assessee, hence, the assessment could not be reopened beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions: • New Delhi Television Ltd. Vs. DCIT

DCIT CC 4 (4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3606/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

submitted that as per proviso to section 147 of the Act per proviso to section 147 of the Act, assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from ... assessee, ure on the part of the assessee, hence, the ure on the part of the assessee, assessment could not be reopened beyond four years from the end assessment could not be reopened beyond four years assessment could not be reopened beyond four years of relevant assessment year of relevant

DCIT CC 4 (4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3605/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

submitted that as per proviso to section 147 of the Act per proviso to section 147 of the Act, assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from ... assessee, ure on the part of the assessee, hence, the ure on the part of the assessee, assessment could not be reopened beyond four years from the end assessment could not be reopened beyond four years assessment could not be reopened beyond four years of relevant assessment year of relevant

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3603/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

submitted that as per proviso to section 147 of the Act per proviso to section 147 of the Act, assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from ... assessee, ure on the part of the assessee, hence, the ure on the part of the assessee, assessment could not be reopened beyond four years from the end assessment could not be reopened beyond four years assessment could not be reopened beyond four years of relevant assessment year of relevant

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3602/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

counsel for the assessee submitted that as per proviso to section 147 of the Act, assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the material facts fully and truly ... reasons recorded there is no allegation of failure on the part of the assessee, hence, the assessment could not be reopened beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions: • New Delhi Television Ltd. Vs. DCIT

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3491/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

counsel for the assessee submitted that as per proviso to section 147 of the Act, the assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the material facts fully ... reasons recorded there is no allegation of failure on the part of the assessee, hence, the assessment could not be reopened beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions: • New Delhi Television Ltd. Vs. DCIT

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3474/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

submitted that as per proviso to section 147 of the Act per proviso to section 147 of the Act, assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from ... assessee, ure on the part of the assessee, hence, the ure on the part of the assessee, assessment could not be reopened beyond four years from the end assessment could not be reopened beyond four years assessment could not be reopened beyond four years of relevant assessment year of relevant

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3473/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

counsel for the assessee submitted that as per proviso to section 147 of the Act, assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the material facts fully and truly ... reasons recorded there is no allegation of failure on the part of the assessee, hence, the assessment could not be reopened beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions: New Delhi Television Ltd. Vs. DCIT

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3472/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

counsel for the assessee submitted that as per proviso to section 147 of the Act, assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the material facts fully and truly ... reasons recorded there is no allegation of failure on the part of the assessee, hence, the assessment could not be reopened beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions: • New Delhi Television Ltd. Vs. DCIT

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas

ITA 3471/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

counsel for the assessee submitted that as per proviso to section 147 of the Act, assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the material facts fully and truly ... reasons recorded there is no allegation of failure on the part of the assessee, hence, the assessment could not be reopened beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions: New Delhi Television Ltd. Vs. DCIT

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3470/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

submitted that as per proviso to section 147 of the Act per proviso to section 147 of the Act, assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from ... assessee, ure on the part of the assessee, hence, the ure on the part of the assessee, assessment could not be reopened beyond four years from the end assessment could not be reopened beyond four years assessment could not be reopened beyond four years of relevant assessment year of relevant

Tanvi Sandeep Mathur, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 54

Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. The present case is coming under the specific clause that of reopening beyond four years. The Ld. AR submitted that the verification of the case records which were available at the time of original assessment proceedings amounts to review

The DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. Shri Jayantibhai S Patel, Ahmedbad

In the result, appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1093/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1093/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11) Dy.Cit Shri Jayantibhai S. Patel बनाम/ Gandhinagar Circle, 48, Shankar Society, Part- Vs. Gandhinagar 1, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 382424 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adgpp8465R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. Dr अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. K. Patel, Ar 24/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 02.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Appeal Is Against Third Round Of Assessment Completed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In This Case. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Return Of Income For A.Y.2010-11 Was Filed By

For Respondent: Shri M. K. Patel, AR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

adjudicate this ground first. 6. Shri M. K. Patel, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the second reopening of the case was beyond four years and, therefore, the First Proviso of Section 147 of the Act was applicable in this case. This Proviso stipulated that no reopening

Jayantilal Sanghvi, Indore vs. ACIT 4(1), Indore

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 539/IND/2023[A.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Jayantilal Sanghvi, Acit, 8/10, Warehouse Road, 4(1), बनाम/ Patel Bridge, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agtps5825Q Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

circumstances provided for reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act (as it then stood) beyond four years from the end of the concerned financial year were: (i) failure on the part of the assessee to file a return under section 139 or; (ii) failure to file ... trigger, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to reopen the concluded assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act, beyond four years commencing from the end of the relevant AY i.e., AY 2009-2010 could only have been founded on the failure on the part

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Global Institute of Technology Society, Jaipur Rajasthan

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 175/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, (Addl.CIT)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

where an assessment is completed under section 143(3) of the Act and where an regular assessment is sought to be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year first, there must be an escapement of income, and second, the assessee must not fail to disclose

Suva Lal Paharia, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur

ITA 157/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 5

assessment was framed u/s 143(1)—Based upon information received by AO, a satisfaction note was recorded and a notice was issued beyond four years from the end of the assessment year, under proviso tos 147(1)—Reassessment proceedings were completed— Assessee claimed that the notice u/s 147 was unsustainable

Debabrata Banerjee, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-34, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1084/KOL/2023[2013-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2024AY 2013-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

assessment has been framed u/s. 143(3) of the 5 Debabrata Banerjee, AY 2013-14 Act then the reopening can only be made beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year if the escapement has been occurred due to the failure on the part of the assessee

Mewat Grit Udyog (Since Dissolved) Through Its Successor Nkb Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Rewari, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rewari, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 372/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234CSection 254Section 263Section 40

mistake was committed in the original assessment order. The application under Section 154 in respect of assessment year was clearly beyond four years from the order of ITO which was sought to be amended. Hence, the applications under Section 154 was moved on 23.09.2021 was barred by limitation provided under

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. Ms.Aarthi Scans, Kovilpatti

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

ITA 75/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

have been filled in NIL' or left blank. (3) The ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the reopening of assessment beyond four years is permissible under law on the basis of factual error or omission pointed out by the audit party as held ... Discount Company Ltd that once the primary facts which are material for assessment was disclosed by the assessee the process of re- assessment beyond four years cannot be initiated. Even on this count the assumption of jurisdiction to re-assess the return of income after lapse of four year from