Section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.279

Section 147(a) falls under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 279 (Income escaping assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 279 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 147(a) is Sonia Gandhi v. ACIT (407 ITR 594), cited in 31 of the 33 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 147(a)

Sonia Gandhi v. ACIT
407 ITR 594 · 2018 · High Court
31
citing judgments

Approval under section 151 for reopening an assessment is valid if the Assessing Officer records reasons strictly as per law, and the assessee cannot raise this as an additional ground at a belated stage.

Madan Lai Agrawal v. CIT
144 ITR 745 · 1983 · High Court
10
citing judgments

A notice issued under section 147 or 148 is bad in law if it is issued to a person who is not the principal officer of the company or if the Assessing Officer has not applied their mind to the facts and reasons before seeking approval under section 151.

Sheo Narain Jaiswal & Ors. v. ITO
176 ITR 35 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated by an Assessing Officer who does not exercise their jurisdiction independently but acts at the behest of a superior authority are invalid due to the non-satisfaction of a condition precedent.

Smt Kalpana Shantilal Haria v. ACIT W.P.{L) No.3063/
414 ITR 385 · 2019 · High Court
9
citing judgments
Rama Devi Agrawal v. CIT
117 ITR 256 · 1979 · High Court
6
citing judgments
Sahebrao Deshmukh Co-op Bank Ltd. v. ACIT
455 ITR 92 · 2023 · High Court
6
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 147(a)

Pushkar Vishwas, Bulandshahr vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3), Bulandshahr

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 5661/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singha.Yr. : 2011-12 Pushkar Vishwas, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca Vaibhav Goel, Ward 3(3), Bulandshahr, 75, Navyug Market, Uttar Pradesh 1St Floor, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Aezpv4597E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vaibhav Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

Jaivir, Sonepat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Sonepat

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 3275/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singha.Yr. : 2012-13 Jaivir, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sonipat, H.No. 1399, Sector-23, Haryana Sonipat, Haryana (Pan: Amgmpj7567H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Impressions Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. ADIT Circle 10(1), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 3275/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singha.Yr. : 2012-13 Jaivir, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sonipat, H.No. 1399, Sector-23, Haryana Sonipat, Haryana (Pan: Amgmpj7567H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sadhuram G Andani

ITR/103/1995HC Gujarat05 Dec 2014
Section 147Section 256(1)Section 271(1)

C.I.T vs. Motichand Virpal Shah

ITR/36/2003HC Gujarat07 Nov 2014
Section 147Section 148

Bhailal Manilal Patel vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITR/18/1999HC Gujarat23 Jun 2014
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

M/S Hindustan Hydraulics vs. C.I.T Jalandhar

ITR/567/1995HC Punjab & Haryana13 Jan 2014
Section 147

CIT Patiala vs. M/S Sukhdev Kumar and Co Rice

ITR/119/1999HC Punjab & Haryana01 Sept 2010

Bench: Ao With Reference To Cost Of Construction Of The Sheller Building?” Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That During The Period, October, 1980 To September, 1983, The Assessee-Firm, I.E. Sukhdev Kumar & Co. Rice Sheller, Sirhind Constructed A Building For Purpose Of

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 256(1)

Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S.Ambica Corporation

ITR/117/1997HC Gujarat15 Apr 2008
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 256(1)Section 69B

Gujarat Fertilisers vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITR/227/1995HC Gujarat31 Jul 2006
Section 147

Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, question No

ITR/225/1994HC Gujarat16 Nov 2005
For Appellant: “[1]
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 15(3)Section 256(2)

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Prem Conductors Pvt Ltd

ITR/73/1995HC Gujarat08 Nov 2005
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 256(1)Section 28

Ramilaben Ratilal Shah vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the Reference stands disposed of

ITR/264/1993HC Gujarat21 Jul 2005
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 256(1)

Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sif Steel Ltd

In the result, both the questions referred to the

ITR/377/1992HC Gujarat01 Feb 2005
Section 139Section 139(2)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 256(2)Section 80

Sadhuram Gordhandas vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITR/102/1986HC Gujarat14 Sept 2001
Section 147Section 256(2)

Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Bipin Vadilal

ITR/193/1984HC Gujarat26 Apr 1999
Section 139Section 147Section 149Section 17

Ram Bai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

CIVIL APPEAL No. 4911/1993Supreme Court18 Feb 1999

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 256(1)

Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong vs. Tarajan Tea Co. (P) Ltd

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1941/1993Supreme Court04 Feb 1999

Bench: -.. 1.4.1989) & 139. C Income Tax-Reassessment-Respondent-Assessee-Assessment Of-- No Omission Or Failure On The Part Of The Assessee To Make A Return Under Section 139 As Contemplated In Sectio11 147(A}-No Information Obtained By The Assessing Officer Subsequent To Assessme11T Order-Assessment Re-Opened By Ito A11D Notice Issued Under Section 147(Aj-Ground That In The Case Of Another Tea Company, The Appellate Assistant Commissioner Had Take11 The D View That Sale' Of Standing Trees Constituted Revenue Receipts A111I, Therefore, Liable To Tax-Held, Neither Clause (A) Nor Clause (B) Of The Section 147Would Apply In This Case-The Order Passed By The Aa.C. In Another Case Is Not ,,, ~- 'I11Formation' Within The Mea11Ing Of The Sectio11 147-The Order Of The Assess- Ing Officer Re- Opening The Earlier Order & Passing A Fresh Assessment Order E Held Unsustainable. Income T~Roceedings Under Section 147(A)--Conversio11 Into Proceedings Under Section 147(B) Without Issuing A Fresh Notice & Initiation Of A Fresh Proceeding-Questio11 Left Open. F Civil Appellate Jurisdiction : Civil Appeal No. 1941 Of 1993. I From The Judgment & Order Dated 32.92 Of The Gauhati High Court In L.T.R. No. 7 Of 1986. G Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Rajiv Nanda, P. Parmeshwaran & B.K. Prasad For The Appellant. Vijay Hansaria, Sunil Kumar Jain & Ajay Kumar Gupta For The Respondent. H The Following Order The Court Was Delivered : 396 +-.

Section 139Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 147wSection 148Section 153

Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka vs. M/S Bedi and Company Pvt. Ltd

CIVIL APPEAL No. 4122/1983Supreme Court18 Feb 1998

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 256Section 256(1)

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mrs.Shushilaben Premji

ITR/79/1983HC Gujarat27 Jan 1997
Section 147Section 256(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 273ASection 273A(4)