← 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

M/S Padma Polychem Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. NFAC, Assessment Unit Itd, Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 5301/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 5301/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Padma Polychem Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cit(A)/Nfac, 528/1, Karkari Road, Vishwash Delhi Nagar, Delhi-110032 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcp4479A Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. & Sh. Akshay Gupta, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077228877(1) Dated 19.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151

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

Colen Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 167/RAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.165 & 167/Ran/2025 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Colen Chemical Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur 1St Floor, Room No.9, Tiwary Bechar Complex, Main Rd. Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcc 3978 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That For The Assessment Year 2013- 2014 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29/01/2016 & For The Assessment Year 2014-2015 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29.12.2016. Notice U/S.148 Of The Act For A.Y.2013-2014 Came To Be Issued On 28.03.2018 & For A.Y.2014-2015 The Notice Was Issued On 24.06.2019. The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Reason Recorded To Reopening For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 At Pages 47 To 51 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

para 2 has held as follows:- 2. It is not in dispute that the assessment was sought to be reopened beyond four years. Therefore, all the conditions under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment beyond four years are required to be satisfied. Having gone ... through the reasons recorded for re- opening, we are of the opinion that the conditions precedent for reopening of the assessment beyond four years are not satisfied. The reassessment was on change of opinion. There are no allegations of suppression of material fact. Under the circumstances, no error has been

Colen Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 165/RAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.165 & 167/Ran/2025 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Colen Chemical Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur 1St Floor, Room No.9, Tiwary Bechar Complex, Main Rd. Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcc 3978 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That For The Assessment Year 2013- 2014 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29/01/2016 & For The Assessment Year 2014-2015 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29.12.2016. Notice U/S.148 Of The Act For A.Y.2013-2014 Came To Be Issued On 28.03.2018 & For A.Y.2014-2015 The Notice Was Issued On 24.06.2019. The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Reason Recorded To Reopening For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 At Pages 47 To 51 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

para 2 has held as follows:- 2. It is not in dispute that the assessment was sought to be reopened beyond four years. Therefore, all the conditions under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment beyond four years are required to be satisfied. Having gone ... through the reasons recorded for re- opening, we are of the opinion that the conditions precedent for reopening of the assessment beyond four years are not satisfied. The reassessment was on change of opinion. There are no allegations of suppression of material fact. Under the circumstances, no error has been

Parvindar Indar Singh, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1002/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

assessee was following cash system of accounting. Original assessment was completed on 28-01-2016 accepting the returned income. Thereafter beyond four years period, the assessment was reopened by recording the following reasons: “….1. Receipt from the professional fee was declared in the ITR after deducting TDS from the gross ... true disclosure and all necessary details were placed on record in the original return and assessed to tax. Thus the reopening of assessment beyond four years period is not valid in law when there is no failure on the part of the assessee. Further, the reopening is merely based

Parvindar Indar Singh, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1001/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

assessee was following cash system of accounting. Original assessment was completed on 28-01-2016 accepting the returned income. Thereafter beyond four years period, the assessment was reopened by recording the following reasons: “….1. Receipt from the professional fee was declared in the ITR after deducting TDS from the gross ... true disclosure and all necessary details were placed on record in the original return and assessed to tax. Thus the reopening of assessment beyond four years period is not valid in law when there is no failure on the part of the assessee. Further, the reopening is merely based

Bholenath Foods Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in above terms

ITA 5777/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2012-13 Bholenath Foods Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shop No.208, Ward 47(1), Bldg. No.2612/13, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. Pan: Aabcb3842P

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

that the original assessment 4 proceedings of the assessee were concluded under Section 143(3) of the Act and the re-opening is beyond four years and hence, in light of first proviso to the Section 147 of the Act, the proceeding is barred by limitation as the Assessee

Nagarajan Jaya, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kanchipuram

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1815/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 264

assessment" and by the aid of this deeming provision, there cannot be any embargo on the power of the AO to make reassessment beyond four years even if the assessee has made proper disclosure earlier. We are not convinced with the submission made on behalf of the Revenue

DCIT, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 4047/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

perused the records and examined the case laws qua facts of the case. It is an undisputed fact that the reopening in not beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore the condition regarding Page |18 ITA No. 4046, 4047/Mum/2025 CO No. 213, 214/Mum/2025

DCIT, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 4046/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

perused the records and examined the case laws qua facts of the case. It is an undisputed fact that the reopening in not beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore the condition regarding Page |18 ITA No. 4046, 4047/Mum/2025 CO No. 213, 214/Mum/2025

Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2179/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Acit, Central Circle 4(3) Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva 15Th Floor, 46C, Chowringhee 110, Kolkata-700107, Vs. Road, Everest House, Kolkata- West Bengal 700071, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs8774P Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 153ASection 68

objections vide letter dated 16.12.2018, the ld. AO in para no.6 has rejected the contention raised by the assessee qua reopening of assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant year but before the expiry of six years. The ld. AO simply stated in the rejection order that ... been passed in a speaking manner. For example, the ld. AR referred to the objections raised by the assessee on reopening of assessment beyond four years but before the expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year and issue of notice

Sudarshan Jeans Private Limited, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ambala

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1070/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)

reasons as well as notice issued u/s 148 dated 31-03-2021 would clearly show that the case is proposed to be reopened beyond four years. Nothing has been shown in the recorded reason as to existence of tangible material / information which has come to the possession ... made by the assessee u/s 32(1)(iia) was found in order. This being so, there was no reason to trigger the reopening beyond four years on the basis of same facts as available during the course of regular assessment proceedings. The proviso to s.147 provides that when an assessment

Shri Vipul Bansal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5628/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 69C

Wing, it became necessary for the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of the transactions, which justified the reopening of the assessment even beyond four years. Accordingly, the learned DR submitted that the reopening was based on tangible material, was not a case of mere change of opinion ... reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Ground No. 2 challenges the validity of reopening on the ground that the reassessment was initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and that the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate any failure on the part of the assessee

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 344/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

void ab initio. The statutory conditions under the first proviso to Section 147 are that no action for reopening can be taken beyond four years unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. For convenience ... bare perusal of aforesaid proviso would show that it stipulates two cumulative conditions which must be satisfied to assume jurisdiction u/s. 147 beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year – (i) There must be failure on the part of the assessee to file the return of income

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 343/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

void ab initio. The statutory conditions under the first proviso to Section 147 are that no action for reopening can be taken beyond four years unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. For convenience ... bare perusal of aforesaid proviso would show that it stipulates two cumulative conditions which must be satisfied to assume jurisdiction u/s. 147 beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year – (i) There must be failure on the part of the assessee to file the return of income

Punya Sthali Tirth Trust, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO Ward (Exemption) Ward 2(4), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5713/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Punya Sthali Tirth Trust, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Gang Nahar Road, Ward (Exemption) - 2(4), Muradnagar, Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aabtp8479P (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Toyota Boshoku Corporation, Japan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2463/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kashish Gupta, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 151

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

Toyota Boshoku Corporation, Japan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2462/DEL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kashish Gupta, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 151

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

Estate of Vandravan P Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5403/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Ms. Shivani ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 159Section 35A

contended that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not establish any such failure, which is a mandatory jurisdictional precondition for reopening beyond four years. The reasons were further assailed on the ground of non-application of mind. 5.5 The learned CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing

Estate of Vandravan P Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5402/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Ms. Shivani ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 159Section 35A

contended that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not establish any such failure, which is a mandatory jurisdictional precondition for reopening beyond four years. The reasons were further assailed on the ground of non-application of mind. 5.5 The learned CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing

Estate of Vandravan P Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5401/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Shah
Section 147Section 148Section 35A

mandatory jurisdictional precondition for such failure, which is a mandatory jurisdictional precondition for such failure, which is a mandatory jurisdictional precondition for reopening beyond four years. The reasons were further assailed on ur years. The reasons were further assailed on ur years. The reasons were further assailed on the ground