“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

ACIT Circle-11(2), New Delhi vs. Humboldt Wedag India Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/DEL/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148

Section 147 of the Act contrary to mandate of law for more than on reasons. (i) The notice for reopening has been issued beyond four years from the end of the Assessment Year 2006-07 in question and the assessment in this case was earlier completed under Section

Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1299/DEL/2020[206-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148

Arun Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 35(8), New Delhi

In the result the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1204/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: V. Rajkuamr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D. R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

final in the original assessment after due verification and examination. The various Courts and the Tribunal have held that the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year to be in valid in terms of proviso to Section 147 of the Act where there

Gulshan Investment Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-10(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 7679/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Us. We Deem It Fit To Address This Preliminary Ground First.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

assessment for the A.Y.2010-11 is proposed to be reopened u/s 147 of the I.T. Act. 10. The case pertains to a period beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment years at the time of issue of notice, necessary sanction is solicited from Pr. Commissioner of Income ... notice u/s 148 of the Act is issued on 31.03.2017. Hence, the notice u/s 148 of the Act is issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Hence, the proviso u/s 147 of the Act would come into operation. We find that

Parametric Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 84/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S.Parametric Trading A.C.I.T., Pvt.Ltd., Circle 4(1), 205, Sujata Chambers, 2Nd Indore. Floor, Abhichand Gandhi Vs. Marg,Off Katha Bazar Masjid (W), Mumbai (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Shailesh Parmar, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2023

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

objecting the reopening on the subject matter already pending before the CIT(A), the ld. Authorized Representative has submitted that the reopening is beyond four years from the end of the assessment year and, therefore, in the absence of any new information or material and failure on the part

M/S. Green Line Earth Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in Green Line Earth Ltd

ITA 1104/DEL/2016[2003-04 (F.Y. 2002-03)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2002-03 Green Line (Punjab), Vs Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadfg5282H Assessment Year: 2002-03 Green Line (Delhi), Vs. Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaps6803P Assessment Year: 2003-04 Green Line Earth Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacg6500C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate & Shri Tarun Aswani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.S. Minhas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is time barred in view of the fact that the said order is passed beyond four years from the end of the financial year in which proceedings were initiated. It was the case of the assessee that the proceedings got initiated

M/S. Green Line (Delhi), New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in Green Line Earth Ltd

ITA 1103/DEL/2016[2003-04 (F.Y. 2002-03)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

M/S. Green Line (Punjab), New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in Green Line Earth Ltd

ITA 1102/DEL/2016[2002-03 (F.Y. 2001-02)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

Sai Prerna Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 216/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sai Prerana Co-Op Society Ltd., Ito-7(3)(2), 317, Puran Aasha Bldg. Gr. Fl. Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Narashi Natha Street, Katha Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Bazar Musjid Bunder (W), 43 Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400 009. Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ruby Srivastava & Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Ms. Ruby Srivastava &For Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR

Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80P

statement to somehow overcome the hurdle to be nothing but a statement to somehow overcome the hurdle of reopening the assessment beyond four years. ing the assessment beyond four years. Apart from the above, the A.O. could have proceeded to reopen Apart from the above, the A.O. could have proceeded

Polta vs. Ky- Tps Power Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5081/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

contrary to the mandate of law for more than one reason. (i) the notice for reopening has been issued beyond four years from the end of assessment year 2009-10 in question and the assessment in this case was earlier framed under Section 143(3) of the Act and therefore

Shri Gordhanbhai R. Asodaria, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat

In the result, the ground No

ITA 267/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Gordhanbhai R. Asodaria, A.C.I.T., 8, Raghuvir Bunglow, City Light Road, Central Circle-3, Vs. Parle Point, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Abapa 6910 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

raised a ground against the validity of reopening, which goes to the root of the matter. Reopening under section 147 was made beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, thus, the first Proviso to Section 147 is 3 Shri Gordhanbhai R. Asodaria Vs ACIT applicable ... 28/03/2014 for A.Y. 2012-13. Notice under Section 148 of the 5 Shri Gordhanbhai R. Asodaria Vs ACIT Act dated 31/03/2019 was served beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, First Proviso to Section 147 is clearly applicable on the facts of the present case

Joginder Pal Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 16(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 2876/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 251

reopening of assessment deserves to be quashed on this point also. (i) Since, the reopening in the instant case has been made beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the competent authority in terms of section 151 of the Act for granting approval for reopening would

The ACIT, Circle-1, Surat vs. M/S. Micro Polyester Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2678/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) A.C.I.T., M/S Micro Polyster Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, 2025, Jash Textile Market, Ring Vs. Surat. Road, Surat-395002. Pan No. Aabcm 6127 E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 43B

assessee was again reopened under section 147. Notice under section 148 was issued upon the assesse on 13.02.2012, which is admittedly beyond four years from the end relevant financial year when the assessment was completed. Thus, first proviso of section 147 is clearly applicable on the facts of present case

Sainik Filling Station, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 4(1), Gurgaon

Appeal are allowed in the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6868/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 40A(3)

Section 144 is bad in law on various counts. The impugned assessment order is for A.Y. 2014-15and the case was reopened beyond four years of the relevant assessment year. The original assessment in this case had been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. There was no tangible

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

established. 10. The ld. AR pointed out that at the very initial state, the assessee filed objection to the initiation of reassessment proceedings beyond four years, copy of which is placed at pages 63-64 of the paper book, but, the AO skipped to adjudicate the said legal issue while ... case is squarely covered under provisions of section 147 of income- tax Act. 1961. Moreover, as the case pertains to a period beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment years at the time of issue of notice, necessary sanction has to be obtained from Pr. Chief Commissioner

M/S Hanuman Tube Well Co., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

Assessing Officer himself. He has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings on the date on which he issued notices which were clearly beyond Four Years from the end of relevant assessment year, which, in the present case, comes to end on 31st March 2001. It is apparent from the reasons that

Farha S. Kadri, Bilimora vs. ITO, Ward-2, Navsari

In the result, the original ground No

ITA 331/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Farha S Kadri, I.T.O. 762, Bazar Street, Bunder Road, Ward-2, Vs. Bilimora (Gujarat)-396321 Navsari. Pan No. Annpk 8150 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

portal. 3. The assessee objects against the reopening on the ground of absence of sanction of chief CIT as the reopening is beyond four years. ITA 331/Srt/2019 Farha S Kadri Vs ITO 5. The AO erred in reasons recorded that the entire cash deposits

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

ITA 990/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Harishankar Lal, DR

Section 148

assessment completed under section 143(3) of the under section 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened beyond four cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant year unless there is a failure on years from the end of the relevant year unless there

Shri. Arvind Satinderpal Ahuja, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1101/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Arvinderpal Satinderpal Ahuja V. Ito (International Taxation) -1(1)(1) Room No. 114, 1St Floor 21/23A, Sunset Heights Scindia House, Ballard Pier Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400050 Mumbai - 400038 Pan: Addpa9627P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Toprani & Ms. Krupa Toprani Department By : Shri Manoj Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Toprani &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

have any authenticity.” 9. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that reopening of assessee’s case was made beyond four years in this regard he brought to our notice Para No. 3 of the Assessment Order and submitted that 148 notice was issued only ... Therefore it is clearly beyond four years. Further, he submitted that Assessing Officer has merely relied on the statement of Shri Ashwin Natwarlal Sheth and the Assessing Officer never shared the same with the assessee and there is no evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer that

ITO Wa, Tiruchengode vs. C.Gopalan, Namakkal

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

ITA 941/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, CITFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate for Shri G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 40

reopening u/s. 148 of the Act was done on 22.03.2016 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act, which is clearly beyond four years. According to Ld. counsel, in the present case the proviso to s. 147 of the Act applies. The Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that during ... Year 2009-10 and complete detail in regard to lorry higher charges were examined by A.O and filed by the assessee. Subsequently, admittedly beyond four years, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment on the same reasons, as noted above, was issued vide dated