← All Phrases

“block assessment”

Search & SeizureSection 158BCSection 158BC4,282 judgments

The decision most relied on for block assessment is CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (380 ITR 612), cited in 689 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on block assessment

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court
689
citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
346 ITR 177 · 2012 · High Court
308
citing judgments

For a non-searched person under Section 153C, the relevant six assessment years are counted backward from the assessment year in which the search was conducted, as prescribed by the first proviso to Section 153C(1).

PCIT v. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd.
465 ITR 101 · 2024 · High Court
277
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, the commencement point for calculating the six or ten assessment year block period is the date of issuing the Section 153C notice, or the date of the satisfaction note/handing over of books, as clarified by the first proviso to Section 153C(1).

Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT
289 ITR 341 · 2007 · Supreme Court
237
citing judgments

A block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act requires a prior search conducted under Section 132 or a requisition of documents/assets under Section 132A. This fundamental condition precedent applies to block assessments, including those concerning other persons under Section 158BD.

CIT v. Jasjit Singh
155 Taxmann.com 155 · 2023 · Supreme Court
235
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C concerning a non-searched person, the relevant date for calculating the block of assessment years is the date on which the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of that person assumes possession of the seized material, not the date of the original search. This date determines the look-back period for reopening assessments under Section 153A read with 153C.

Rishabchand Bhansali v. Dy. CIT
267 ITR 577 · 2004 · High Court
202
citing judgments

The previous approval required for assessment orders under provisions like Section 158BG or Section 153D is an administrative power and an internal matter, not deciding the assessee's rights. A mere irregularity in granting such administrative approval does not vitiate the assessment order.

P.R. Metrani v. CIT
287 ITR 209 · 2006 · Supreme Court
187
citing judgments

Section 132 of the Income Tax Act is a self-contained code governing search and seizure operations. The books of accounts, documents, valuables, or statements recorded during a search can be used as evidence in any subsequent proceedings under the Act, and the section outlines the conditions for issuing warrants of authorization.

CIT (Central) v. Kabul Chawla
2015 SCC OnLine DEL 11555 · 2015 · Reported
186
citing judgments

No addition can be made in respect of a completed assessment in the absence of incriminating material, especially when considering the object and purpose of Section 153-A.

Judgments citing block assessment

Sajan Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5949/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation. 24. If the Revenue’s contention that the block assessment can be framed only ... standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement

Anand Kumar Jain, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4723/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation. 24. If the Revenue’s contention that the block assessment can be framed only ... standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement

Satish Dev Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5955/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation. 24. If the Revenue’s contention that the block assessment can be framed only ... standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement

Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5948/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation. 24. If the Revenue’s contention that the block assessment can be framed only ... standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement

Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5947/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation. 24. If the Revenue’s contention that the block assessment can be framed only ... standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement

Anand Jain HUF, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5946/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation. 24. If the Revenue’s contention that the block assessment can be framed only ... standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement

Anand Jain HUF, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5945/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation. 24. If the Revenue’s contention that the block assessment can be framed only ... standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement

Creelotex Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 651/AHD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

statements on a ‘standalone basis’ without reference to any other material discovered during search would not empower the AO to make additions in a block assessment (which is peri materia with the present scheme of search assessment under s.153A of the Act). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court

Nitin P. Chheda, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3945/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

month in which return was furnished by the assessee, the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer with regard to the block assessment after the period of limitation was barred and the entire proceedings in pursuance of such notice is null and void. 6. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders ... reassessment. She also sought to distinguish the decision in ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (supra) on the ground that it pertained to a block assessment. 9. Dr Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Assessee, at the outset drew the attention of this Court to an order passed by this

Nitin P. Chheda, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3944/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

month in which return was furnished by the assessee, the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer with regard to the block assessment after the period of limitation was barred and the entire proceedings in pursuance of such notice is null and void. 6. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders ... reassessment. She also sought to distinguish the decision in ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (supra) on the ground that it pertained to a block assessment. 9. Dr Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Assessee, at the outset drew the attention of this Court to an order passed by this

Mrs.Prabhaben K. Gala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-23(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3943/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

month in which return was furnished by the assessee, the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer with regard to the block assessment after the period of limitation was barred and the entire proceedings in pursuance of such notice is null and void. 6. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders ... reassessment. She also sought to distinguish the decision in ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (supra) on the ground that it pertained to a block assessment. 9. Dr Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Assessee, at the outset drew the attention of this Court to an order passed by this

Mrs.Prabhaben K. Gala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-23(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3942/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

month in which return was furnished by the assessee, the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer with regard to the block assessment after the period of limitation was barred and the entire proceedings in pursuance of such notice is null and void. 6. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders ... reassessment. She also sought to distinguish the decision in ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (supra) on the ground that it pertained to a block assessment. 9. Dr Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Assessee, at the outset drew the attention of this Court to an order passed by this

Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1879/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleshri Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali V. Income Tax Officer – 17(1)(2) Gem Time Trading, 59 Nakhoda Street Aayakar, Mumbai New Vora’S Malo, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 24 Mumbai – 400 003 & M/S. Kagalwala & Associates Pan: Aappk 4042 B (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. K. Shivram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani Department By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. Shivram &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore
Section 124Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

reassessment. She also sought to distinguish the decision in ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (supra) on the ground that it pertained to a block assessment. 9. Dr Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Assessee, at the outset drew the attention of this Court to an order passed by this ... supra), the Allahabad High Court noticed that the decision of the Supreme Court in ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (supra) where in relation to block assessment, the Supreme Court held that the requirement to issue notice under Section 14 Shri Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali 143(2) was mandatory

Today Realty P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(3), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4029/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

Gujarat High Court Issue Involved: "Whether non-issuance of the notice u/s 143(2) within the prescribed time, made the whole block assessment order null and void and bad in law, despite the assessee not having raised any objection before the passing of the assessment order and despite the provisions ... accept the return of undisclosed assessment filed by the assessee issuance of a notice under section 143(2) is a prerequisite for framing the block assessment order under chapter XlV B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We are also of the view that if an assessment order is passed

Today Realty Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(3), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4028/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Gujarat High Court Issue Involved: "Whether non-issuance of the notice u/s 143(2) within the prescribed time, made the whole block assessment order null and void and bad in law, despite the assessee not having raised any objection before the passing of the assessment order and despite the provisions ... accept the return of undisclosed assessment filed by the assessee issuance of a notice under section 143(2) is a prerequisite for framing the block assessment order under chapter XlV B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We are also of the view that if an assessment order is passed

DCIT CC 3(4) Ce RG 3, Mumbai vs. Samir Narain Bhojwani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1124/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar/ ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Vora Prasad Gude
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Assessment Year 2001-02 onwards have been completed under section 143{3} of She Act. A perusal of these assessment: orders (including (the block assessment order passed u/s158BC of the Act r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act) reveals that the activity under consideration is stated by the Assessing Officers under

The Archdiocesan Board of Education, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 585/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. The Archdiocesan The Deputy Board Of Education, Commissioner Of Archbishop’S House, No. 75 Income Tax Vs. Millers Road, Benson Town, (Exemptions), Bangalore – 560 046. Circle – 1, Pan: Aabat5296P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

same date, a notice was issued by the AO to the said partnership firm also u/s. 158BC of the IT Act. On 20.11.2000, Block assessment order was passed by the AO in the case of the firm and in the same, it was held that in the case

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ganpati Sugar Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the COs

ITA 6465/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs Ganpati Sugar Ltd., Central Circle-3, D-143, Defence Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacg4670K (Co No.178/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ganpati Sugar Ltd., Vs. Acit, D-143, Defence Colony, Central Circle-3, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacg4670K Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. Ganpati Breweries Ltd., Central Circle-3, D-143, Defence Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcg3123C (Co No.177/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ganpati Breweries Ltd., Vs. Acit, D-143, Defence Colony, Central Circle-3, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcg3123C (Appellants/Cross Objectors) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Mrs. Ragini Handa, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153A

erred in assuming jurisdiction to assess u/s 153A /143(3) of the Act. 3.1 That on facts and in law block assessment u/s 153A is not warranted if search warrant was issued in joint names to search premises belonging to one assessee. 4. That the assessee craves leave ... erred in assuming jurisdiction to assess u/s 153A /143(3) of the Act. 3.1 That on facts and in law block assessment u/s 153A is not warranted if search warrant was issued in joint names to search premises belonging to one assessee. 4. That the assessee craves leave

DCIT - 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Best Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4984/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Itas No. 4984/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Best Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-9(2)(1), 2, Ground Floor, Ram Niwas, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Paranjpe ‘B’ Scheme, Road No.3, Ville Parle (E), Andheri, Mumbai-57 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacb2782M प्रत्याक्षेप सM./ Co No. 351/Mum/2018 (Arising In Ita No. 4984/Mum/2017 For Ay 2014-15) M/S. Best Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 2, Ground Floor, Ram Niwas, Income Tax-9(2)(1), Paranjpe ‘B’ Scheme, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Road No.3, Ville Parle (E), Andheri, Mumbai-57 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri S. Abi Rama Karthikeyan, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri S. Abi Rama Karthikeyan, DRFor Respondent: Shri B.v. Jhaveri, AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

material or information found in the course of survey proceeding could not be a basis for making any addition in the block assessment, vide decision of this court in T. C (A) No. 2620 of 2006 (between CIT v. S. Ajit Kumar [2008] 300 ITR 152 (Mad.); (iv) Finally

Ved Prakash, Haryana vs. ACIT, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is on this ground is dismissed

ITA 1413/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1409/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Ita No. 1410/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Ita No. 1411/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Ita No. 1412/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1413/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ved Parkash, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income S/O Sh. Partap Singh, Tax, Sco 202-203, Office Of Paras Wali Gal, Near Bus Stand, Income Tax, Huda City Centre, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana Bhiwani (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Azyps0463J Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Rohtak Each Dated 30.12.2016. 2. In Ita No. 1409/Del/2017, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Effective Grounds: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering That The Assessed Income After Giving Appeal Effect Of Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & Hon'Ble Itat Was Wrongly Determined On 03/03/2011 At Rs.1,58,925/- Instead Of Correct Computation At Rs.66,425/-. Even This Issue Has Not Been Considered Though Raised. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) In The Facts Of The Case Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Of Income From School Without

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Aggarwal [2018] 93 taxmann.com 247 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where in course of block assessment proceedings, AO made addition to assessee's undisclosed income in respect of gift, in view of fact that assessee did not even know donor personally and, moreover