← All Phrases

“within four years”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 147391 judgments

The decision most relied on for within four years is (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (221 ITR 538), cited in 125 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on within four years

(P.) Ltd. v. ITO
221 ITR 538 · 1996 · Supreme Court
125
citing judgments

The sanction of a specified authority under Section 151 is a mandatory procedural check before issuing a notice under Section 148. This procedural safeguard aims to prevent mechanical reopening of assessments and harassment of the assessee.

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation
305 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
96
citing judgments

When no specific statutory period of limitation exists, proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, particularly for payments to non-residents, must be initiated within a reasonable period of four years. This limitation also applies to consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271C.

Dass Khanna v. ITO
460 ITR 546 · 2024 · High Court
41
citing judgments

The authority required to grant prior approval under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act for reassessment proceedings varies based on the applicable time limit for reassessment, as limitation is inextricably intertwined with the rank of the specified approving authority.

Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT
236 ITR 742 · 1999 · High Court
32
citing judgments

Reopening an assessment within four years to re-examine a deduction under Section 80HHC, which was wrongly allowed in the original assessment, is valid. This is illustrated by cases where reassessment was held valid for re-examining deductions based on how excise duty was treated in the balance sheet.

340 ITR 299 (Bom.) (v) Desai Bros. Ltd. v. DCIT
267 ITR 161 · 2004 · High Court
30
citing judgments

The first proviso to section 147 of the Income Tax Act applies when an assessment is re-opened within four years from the end of the assessment year. If the assessment year is within four years, the conditions of the proviso are met.

232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT
397 ITR 639 · 2017 · High Court
26
citing judgments

The approval for reopening of assessment must be obtained from the prescribed authority, which depends on whether the assessment is being reopened within four years or beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT
313 ITR 170 · 2009 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Reopening assessment proceedings under Section 147 is permissible within four years, even if full and true particulars were provided during the original assessment, provided the Assessing Officer forms a prima facie opinion of underassessment or escapement of income.

CIT v. Aquatic Remedies
406 ITR 545 · 2018 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Sanction for reopening an assessment under Section 151 requires approval from the specified authority, and approval from a superior but different authority is invalid. Even if the reopening is within four years, the correct authority must grant approval.

Judgments citing within four years

Sunny Tarunkumar Doshi, Jetpur vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

held that once an assessment has been completed under Section 143(3), the same cannot be reopened within four years unless there is tangible material to establish escapement of income. The Court categorically ruled that reopening based on a mere change of opinion is not valid. As the present case ... falls within four years of the original assessment and no tangible material has been brought to justify the reopening, the action under Section 147 is liable to be quashed. - The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings on the grounds of "inadequate consideration" as well as S.69 of the Act related

Nishchint Bagga, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6261/DEL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

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

31st March 2021. According to the Income Tax Officer, in view of the above, Assessment Year 2015- 2016 which falls under the category within four years as on 31st March 2020, the statutory approval for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year

Abdul Saeed Issak Mulla, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2427/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 153Section 274Section 69A

regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh. (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years, and (ii) If income ... escaping was more than Rupees one lakh; (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner

Sakshi Ratneshchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1741/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 68Section 69C

regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh. (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under section 148 within four years after 6 Sakshi Ratneshchand Jain obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years ... income escaping was more than Rupees one lakh; (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner

Mitesh Vijay Gulati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int. Tax Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4227/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 6(1)Section 6(1)(c)

India. G. Thus, during the year under assessment, the assessee stayed in India for a period of more than 60 days and within four years immediately prior to the year under proceeding, the assessee was in India for a period of more than 365 days. H. In view

Totalenergies Marketing Services, France vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3405/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 153Section 274Section 69A

regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh. (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years, and (ii) If income ... escaping was more than Rupees one lakh; (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer vs. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 1285/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer, C. R. Building – 305 001. ..... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Shailesh Mantri, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254Section 43B

clear that the words ''reason to believe'' occurring in section 147 does not make a distinction in respect of reopening done within four years or beyond four years. [Para 11] ■ The provisos contained in section 147 impose conditions when reopening is done beyond four years and matters connected thereof. Thus

Tijaria Polypipes Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cirlce 4, Jaipur

ITA 616/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Since no scrutiny assessment had taken place in instant case and there was prima facie material based on which reopening notice was issued within four years, sufficiency or correctness of material would not be considered at stage of issue of notice under section 148. It is held that in writ

DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun vs. R.B. Enterprises, Dehradun

ITA 4/DDN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A(1)(b)

second question my answer would be that the assessment proceedings cannot be validly reopened under section 147 of the Act even within four years, if an assessee has furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment with reference to the income alleged to have escaped assessment

M/S. R.B. Enterprises, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

ITA 3501/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A(1)(b)

second question my answer would be that the assessment proceedings cannot be validly reopened under section 147 of the Act even within four years, if an assessee has furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment with reference to the income alleged to have escaped assessment

M/S. R.B. Enterprises, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

ITA 3500/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A(1)(b)

second question my answer would be that the assessment proceedings cannot be validly reopened under section 147 of the Act even within four years, if an assessee has furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment with reference to the income alleged to have escaped assessment

Atul Finlease, Jamnagar vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 875/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.875/Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Atul Finlease. Vs. The Dcit Circle-2(1), C/O Atul Automotives, Rajkot Jamnagar Jamnagar Highway, Hapa. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatfa3518L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Sanghavi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing :21/01/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement :23/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Sanghavi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(40)Section 69A

chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8) 8. This case is within four years from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 has been obtained separately from Addl. Commissioner

M/S. Larsen & Tourbro Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2) & 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1010/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of L&T House, Income Tax, N.M. Marg, Vs. Central Circle-5(4), Ballard Estate, Fort, [Erstwhile Income Tax Officer-2(2), Mumbai] Mumbai 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Pan : Aaacl0140P Nariman Point, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26-05-2008, i.e., within four years from the end of the assessment year. 4. The reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of assessment reads as under:- “Reasons for reopening Larsen & Toubro

Mack Star Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4994/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yash VarmaniFor Respondent: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147

change of opinion’and held that unless there is a new tangible material or a trigger to reopen the assessment then even within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, assessment cannot be reopened. The relevant finding of the Tribunal (supra) is reproduced as under ... Officer to invoke a trigger for making belief that income escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer has himself mentioned that for reopening the assessment within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, there should be some tangible material to do so. For reopening the assessment there

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), Mumbai

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

ITA 935/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

Section 1Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 147Section 153Section 80G

assessee had been processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and the notice u/s 148 has been issued by the AO within four years from the end of the assessment year. Accordingly, he held that the reopening of assessment is valid. The observations made and the decision taken ... arise. 35.6 Whereas in a case where the initial assessment order is under Section 143 (3), and it is sought to be reopened within four years from the expiry of the relevant assessment year, the AO has to base his reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment on some

Shree Sai Baba Santhan Trust Mumbai, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 932/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

Section 1Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 147Section 153Section 80G

assessee had been processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and the notice u/s 148 has been issued by the AO within four years from the end of the assessment year. Accordingly, he held that the reopening of assessment is valid. The observations made and the decision taken ... arise. 35.6 Whereas in a case where the initial assessment order is under Section 143 (3), and it is sought to be reopened within four years from the expiry of the relevant assessment year, the AO has to base his reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment on some

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Patna, C.R. Building vs. Deepshree Properties Pvt. Ltd., Saguna Khagaul Danapur Patna

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 239/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 69ASection 69C

thinks fit. (1A) (Omitted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment Act, 1972, w.e.f. 1-1-1973.] (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under

Sumita Roy Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 48(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1272/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.……………………….……….……….……Appellant 2, Lal Bazaar Street, 1St Floor, Kol-700001.. [Pan: Aaccm0481E] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata…….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 U/S 139 Of The Act On 20.07.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later On, Based On Information Received Through Itba Software Under The Head High Risk Transaction Case Notice U/S 148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued & Finally Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 13.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed Return On 02.11.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647. Assessment Was Made Under Sec. 147 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd Read With Section 144B Of The Act On 24.05.2023 Determining Total Income Of Rs.6,55,31,471/- Inter-Alia Making Following Addition:

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income ... escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after 4 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner

Yogesh Ashok Mundade, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 11(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5084/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh M. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr. D/R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69A

regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under Section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income ... escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner

Power Links Transmission Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4599/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Powerlinks, Transmission Ltd. Vs Additional 10Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Commissioner Of District Centre, Jasola, Income Tax, Spl. Range New Delhi. 7 New Delhi Pan No. Aabct7775M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3ASection 80I

meant by the term "change of opinion? (ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened under Section 147 of the Act, even within four year, if an assessee has furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment with reference to income alleged to have escaped assessment ... second question my answer would be that the assessment proceedings cannot be validly reopened under section 147 of the Act even within four years, if an assessee has furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment with reference to the income alleged to have escaped assessment