Topic

reopening assessment

3 articlesLatest June 2026
Section 148A(b) IT Act | Seven-Day Reply Period Mandatory Before Reopening Assessment; Violation Quashes Notice : ITAT Delhi
Case Law Analysis
|Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Section 148A(b) IT Act | Seven-Day Reply Period Mandatory Before Reopening Assessment; Violation Quashes Notice : ITAT Delhi

The ITAT Delhi has quashed a reopening notice and assessment for failing to grant the assessee the mandatory seven-day window to respond to the show-cause notice under Section 148A(b), aligning with the Delhi High Court’s precedent in Sai Cooperative Society. This ruling reinforces procedural fairness in tax reassessments and protects taxpayers from rushed, prejudicial notices - impacting all assesses facing reopening actions under Section 147.

Section 148A Income Tax Act | Reassessment Notices Issued After 01.04.2021 Under Old Regime Void: ITAT Delhi
Case Law Analysis
|Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Section 148A Income Tax Act | Reassessment Notices Issued After 01.04.2021 Under Old Regime Void: ITAT Delhi

ITAT Delhi rules that reassessment notices issued under the pre-amendment Section 148 of the Income Tax Act after 01.04.2021 are invalid due to procedural non-compliance. The tribunal relies on the precedent in Sumanjeet Aggarwal v. ITO, emphasizing that the new scheme under Section 148A must be strictly followed. This decision impacts taxpayers facing reassessment proceedings initiated under the old regime post-amendment.

Section 147 IT Act | Mechanical Reopening Based on Investigation Wing Inputs Without Independent Reasoning Violates Natural Justice : ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Law Analysis
|Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Section 147 IT Act | Mechanical Reopening Based on Investigation Wing Inputs Without Independent Reasoning Violates Natural Justice : ITAT Ahmedabad

ITAT Ahmedabad rules that reopening assessments under Section 147 of the IT Act solely based on investigation wing inputs, without independent application of mind or affording the assessee an opportunity to respond, violates principles of natural justice. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment, emphasizing that procedural fairness mandates reasoned justification beyond mere reliance on third-party information.