“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, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross-

ITA 794/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliay

Section 132(4)Section 147

proviso becomes operative only where the original assessment has been completed under section 143(3) and the reassessment is sought to be made beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the present case, the assessment year involved is A.Y. 2016-17 and the notice under

Rakesh, Copernicus Marg vs. ITO Ward 43, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6481/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Rakesh, D-65, Pinces Park, Ward-43, Copernicus Marg, Delhi Delhi Pan: Bwppr4036R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Shikhar Garg, Ca Department By 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

Sathi Bhai Sathyavrithan, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 68(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi 110002, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6274/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sathi Bhai Sathyavrithan, Rz 31-32, Roshan Mandi Ward-68(1), Surya Kiran Hospital, New Delhi Najafgarh, New Delhi Pan: Ayqps2816L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

Neelam Jain, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 36(1) Civic Centre, New Delhi 110002, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6261/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Neelam Jain, 374, Veer Apartment, Ward-36(1), Sector-103, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Ajppj0908E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary vs. M/S Virgo Properties Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1181/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI.LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Hiralal Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 288/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) where appeal of the assessee was dismissed sustaining the order of the AO.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

assessee has, inter alia, challenged the validity of the reassessment on the ground that the notice under Section 148 dated 11.08.2017 was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year (A.Y. 2011–12), even though the original assessment had been completed under Section ... original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 07.03.2014 and that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 11.08.2017 clearly beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year (31.03.2012). 7. In such a situation, the first proviso to Section 147 becomes applicable, which restricts reopening

M/S. Muse Advertising and Media Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 10(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2202/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

truly disclosed at the time of original assessment and therefore the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2018 which was beyond four years was invalid as the condition precedent in the proviso to Section 147 was not satisfied. The Ld. AR relied on a series of decisions ... Airways (I) Ltd. (supra). 7. Similarly, we find that, in order to reopen the concluded assessment for AY 2011-12 beyond four years, the AO was required to obtain sanction from the PCIT-4, Kolkata u/s 151 of the Act. In our opinion, the PCIT has to record his reasons

Sudhir Babu Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1352/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 69A

NFAC erred in sustaining the action of the AO in reopening of assessment for the asst. year 2013-14 which is beyond four years from the end of the relevant asst. year and on a borrowed satisfaction. The Id. NFAC failed to appreciate that the assessment could not have been

Sudhir Babu Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1351/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 69A

Sudhir Babu Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1349/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 69A

Sudhir Babu Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1348/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 69A

Ramasamy Kandasamy, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2023/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2023/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Ramasamy Kandasamy, The Ito, No.4/76, Sf No.927, Sukkaliyur, Ward-1, Karur-639 003. Karur. [Pan: Ajgpk 4945 H]

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth KumarFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151

however, the AO’s successor is noted to have changed his opinion and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.03.2019 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, on the basis of the same impounded material, which was already in his possession, when the assessment ... material, which was already on record. Having missed this bus earlier, the Revenue cannot be permitted to avail of the extended time- limit beyond four years, particularly in the absence of any new or tangible material (apart from the existing survey material) being brought on record. In our considered view

Vedanta Ltd (Earlier Known As Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd.), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ravi Sharma & Jaskaran SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment in the return of income. Thus, reopening of assessment beyond four years is invalid. He further submitted that in the reasons, there is no reference to any fresh material which has came into possession of Assessing Officer that ... either that any new tangible material has come into possession of Assessing Officer subsequent to the original assessment. Whenever, the assessment is reopened beyond four years, first proviso to section 147 of the Act gets triggered. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has to show that income chargeable to tax has escaped

Rajbir Singh, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3104/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Rajbir Singh Vs. Acit 1625A, The Magnolia, Dlf Central Circle-19, City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Khandewalan, Haryana New Delhi Pan: Aaups2176H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Ca Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 Order

Section 13ASection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

which such notice ha s 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 firs t proviso to section ... that for the purpose o f section 151(1) o f 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 o f Income-tax, and there was no such approval in the p resent

Wheatons Design Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT / DCIT, Circle -6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 781/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita rinesh, JCIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

existence of the circumstances, viz., failure to disclose fully and truly all material particulars which would confer jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceeding beyond four years and within six years. Failure to record the existence of the jurisdictional fact while invoking the extended period under the proviso to sec. 147 would ... There being no allegations of suppression of any material fact by the assessee, the conditions precedents for reopening of assessment beyond four years are not satisfied and therefore, the impugned notice u/s 148 seeking to reopen the assessment beyond the period of four years has been rightly set aside

Manoj Kumar Dugar, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2170/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

upholding the validity of reopening u/s 147 of the Act.  That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year were invalid in law, there being no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully ... assessee. The reasons recorded do not allege failure on the part of the assessee, which is a sine qua non for reopening beyond four years. Reliance was placed on several judicial precedents including CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [320 ITR 561 (SC)], Foramer France

Addl.CIT, New Delhi vs. Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5384/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं. 5384 & 5385/िद"ी/2017(िन.व. 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Shri Somil AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 40

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A), inter alia assailing reopening of assessment beyond four years, as well as, assailing disallowance u/s.40(a) of the Act on merits. The CIT(A) vide impugned order upheld reopening of assessment but on merits ... taken up first for adjudication. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessment has been reopened beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year. Referring to reasons recorded for reopening at page no. 1 of the paper book, he submitted that there

Agrawala Finserve Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3503/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain & Atul DhamaFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR

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

further submitted that the condition set out by first proviso to section 147 of the Act, where assessment has been reopened beyond four years are not satisfied. Nowhere, in the reasons recorded for reopening it has been mentioned by the AO that on the failure on the part of assessee ... disclose fully and truly all material facts at the time of assessment the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The assessment reopened beyond four years without recording such observations is bad in law. To support this contention, the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision in the case

DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi vs. Parveen Aggarwal, Gurgaon

Accordingly the same are hereby upheld. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Parveen Aggarwal, Vs Acit, Ma-1/7, 3D, Garden Central Circle-14, Estate, M.G.Road, Gurgaon New Delhi Haryana-122002. Pan-Aahpa0660R Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs Parveen Aggarwal, Central Circle-14, Ma-1/7, 3D, Garden New Delhi Estate, M.G.Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aahpa0660R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri K.Sampath, Adv. & Shri V.Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Cross-Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 27, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 28.11.2022 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-27/10482/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dt. 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita Nos.178 & 197/Del/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

case of change of opinion by the AO. As the re-opening of the case relates to assessment year 2012-13 which is beyond four years, the approval of Ld. Pr. CIT, Central-2, New Delhi is required in this case. A proposal for issuing notice u/s ITA Nos.178 & 197/Del/2023

Parveen Aggarwal, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi

Accordingly the same are hereby upheld. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 178/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250