“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

Salim, Saharanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Saharanpur

ITA 4513/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 13ASection 148Section 148ASection 29A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `SMC', NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No

Salim, Saharanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Saharanpur

ITA 4512/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4512/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Ita No. 4513/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Salim, Vs Income Tax Officer, Khairdee, Vill.-Maganpura, Post- Saharanpur, Badshaibagh Behat, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh-247001 Uttar Pradesh-247121 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Gxmps2271C Assessee By: Sh. Anil Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2025 Order These Assessee’S Twin Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 13ASection 148Section 148ASection 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, of the Income-tax Act. 4. The stand of the Revenue ... 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

Wheels India Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu-1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 696/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy. S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.696/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. M/S. Wheels India Ltd., The Acit, No.21, Annasalai Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai-600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacw 0315 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

further submitted that the assessee failed to disclose the capital nature of these claims, justifying reopening beyond four years and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs P.V.S. Beedied Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC). She furthermore contended

Earthstahl & Alloys Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 478/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.478/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Earthstahl & Alloys Limited 5B Mohini Merline, Jayshree Vihar Pandritarai Mandi Gate, Ravigram S.O, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aacce3567F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Birendra Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

relevant assessment year and the date of issuance of the notice which is 31.03.2021, therefore, such notice has been issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Further, the Ld. Counsel referred to the “reasons to believe” for the reopening of the case which

Falgun Mahesh Oza, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of assesse is allowed

ITA 2970/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Falgun Mahesh Oza Ito, Ward – 22(1)(1), Mumbai 3Rdfloow, Nandan Villa Model Town Vs Society Chs, Gulmohar Cross Road No. 7, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai – 400049. [Pan: Aaapo 0474 A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

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

assessee submits that reasons recorded by assessing officer are not valid reasons. Admittedly, the case of assessee was reopened beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year. There is no reference in the reasons recorded that there was any failure on the part of assessee in not disclosing

Auto Profiles Limited, Jharkhand vs. DCIT Circle-1, Jharkhand

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 267/RAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/ S/Hri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year : 2013-14 Auto Profiles Ltd., C Auto Profiles Ltd., C-33, 34, Vs. Dcit, Dcit, Circle-1, Circle 35, 35, Iv Iv Pase, Pase, Adityapur Adityapur Jamshedpur/Ao, Jamshedpur/Ao, National National Industrial Industrial Area, Area, Po: Po: Faceless Centre Faceless Centre Gamharia, Gamharia, Seraikela, Seraikela, Jamshedpur Pan/Gir No. .Aabca 3931 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anup Shangai, Fca & Shri Anand Harathka, Assessee By Anup Shangai, Fca & Shri Anand Harathka, Fca Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Revenue By Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/08/202 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/08/2 2025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.10.2023 In Appeal No.Cit(A) In Appeal No.Cit(A) Nfac/2012- 13/10121574 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Shri Anup Shangai, Fca, Shri Anup Shangai, Fca,Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. Shri Ed For The Assessee. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, T Pandya, Ld Sr Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Anup Shangai, FCA and Shri Anand HarathkaFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessment had been completed u/s.143(3) on 22.6.2015 and the notice u/s.!48 of the Act has been issued on 31.3.2021, which was beyond four years period, the proviso to section 147 came into play. It was the submission that in the reasons recorded, there is no mention of failure ... upheld. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. The facts in the present clearly show that the reopening has been done beyond four years period and the original assessment has also been done in the present case. This being so, admittedly, the proviso to section 147 of the Act thus

M/S. Aman Enterprises, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Aman Enterprises, D.C.I.T., 22, Park Street, Near Doranda College, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaifa 9921 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

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

assessee came to be completed under Section 143(3) on 26/12/2013. Subsequently, notice under Section 148 came to be issued on 18/08/2017 beyond four years. It was a submission that the assessment order came to be passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 on 26/11/2018. It was a submission ... assessment year was 1997-98 and the Assessing Officer had issued notice for reopening under section 148 on 24- 6-2003, which was beyond four years after the end of the relevant assessment year. Hence, it was clearly barred by limitation under proviso to section 147. Therefore, the Tribunal

M/S. Anadya Technologies Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 589/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishram/S Anadya Technologies Vs Ito, Ward-8(1), Kolkata Private Limited, 92/1B, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Sarani, Kolkata Pan No. :Aadca 7382 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Altaf Hussain, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT-Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

been issued on the assessee on 30.03.2021. It was the submission that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act beyond four years period. It was the submission that as required under the proviso u/s.147 of the Act was to be a finding of the Assessing Officer that there is failure ... Supreme Court 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

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 886/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

opportunity to produce various records as called for by the Assessing Officer. It is also fact on record that reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond four years and Assessing Officer has not brought on record any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 885/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 884/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 6053/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

stood at the relevant time. ACIT V. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. 253 CTR (SC) 305 wherein the reopening beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year is held to be invalid by Hon’ble Supreme Court: Conclusion : Assessee having disclosed full details of its dealings in stocks ... valid. The jurisdictional High Court in Noida Power Co. Ltd. V. CIT (2017) 154DTR10 (All) also favoured assessee on the issue of reopening beyond four years: Besides, the assessee also relies on the following case laws- DRS Industries Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT (2021) 322CTR (Mad.) 289 First Source Solution

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

Oveen Naveen Lewis, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int. Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

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

M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-II, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 601/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)

under section 147 of the Act, then in such case no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 4 :: relevant assessment year, unless the AO demonstrates in the recorded reasons that income had escaped assessment ... completed under section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, it is not only necessary for the AO to form reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment as envisaged in Section

ACIT, Circle-34, Kolkata vs. Vinod Kumar Lahoti, Kokata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2460/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Appellant has also submitted that objections to reopening of assessment have not been properly disposed of and the notice has been issued beyond four years without any failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for assessment. The assessee has further submitted that his income

DCIT, Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Adinath Textiles Limited, Ludhiana

In the result both the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 122/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

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

Amrit Pal Singh Chadha, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2794/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2794/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Amrit Pal Singh, Vs Acit, 4410, Dlf, Phase-Iv, Central Circle-19, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpc3215P Assessee By: Sh. Amar Jeet Singh, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Cit(A)-27, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1073779465(1) Dated 27.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Amar Jeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tmf Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 2983/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrideputy Commissioner Of Vs Tmf Holdings Limited 14, 4Th Floor, Sir H C Dinshaw Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai Building, 16, Horniman Circle, Fort, Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai-400 001 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aacct4644A 400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

explanation 1 to section 147 of the Act are additional layers of protection given to the Assessee that if the proceedings are initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, then in addition to there being no change of opinion/ availability of tangible material, the assessing