May 2026

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, allowed the assessee’s appeals against the reassessment order and penalty for AY 2013-14. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order under section 147 read with section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the Assessing Officer failed to issue mandatory notice under section 143(2) during reassessment proceedings. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hotel Blue Moon and other precedents, the Tribunal held that such omission renders the reassessment void ab initio. Consequently, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also deleted. The appeals were allowed.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench allowed the appeal of Mr. Prakash Chand Agrawal, quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Tribunal held that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion as the original assessment under Section 143(3) had already examined all relevant facts. The Assessing Officer’s reasons did not establish any failure to disclose material facts. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment order were set aside. The appeal was allowed.

The Calcutta High Court quashed reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that after the amendment effective from 01.09.2024, the notice issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year is barred by limitation under Section 149(1)(a). The court followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Sai Kumar Mateti, which mandates that all reassessment notices post-amendment must conform to the amended provisions. As there was no material to show that income escaping assessment amounted to Rs. 50 lakh or more, the condition under Section 149(1)(b) was not satisfied. Consequently, the show-cause notice under Section 148A(b), the order under Section 148A(d), and the notice under Section 148 were all quashed.

The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of M/s. MA Projects Pvt. Ltd. against the addition of Rs 50,00,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application money received from Indian Hosienry P Ltd. The investor was a tax-assessed company with net worth of over Rs 300 lacs, and had responded to the AO’s notice under section 133(6). The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional Delhi High Court decision in CIT vs Gangeshwari Metal P Ltd (361 ITR 10) and distinguished the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt Ltd (412 ITR 161) on facts. The addition was deleted and the appeal allowed.

The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeals of Ram Avtar Mittal for AYs 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2020-21, quashing the reassessment proceedings because the Assessing Officer failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of third-party witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the addition, in violation of natural justice principles as established by the Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in ITA No. 4865/Mum/2025 for AY 2017-18, allowed the appeal of Fees Regulating Authority for statistical purposes. The Tribunal restored the issue of taxability to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, pending the outcome of the assessee’s application for notification under section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee’s alternative claims under section 11 and on the ground of being an instrumentality of the State were kept open. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

In ITA 5190/MUM/2025, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench, comprising Judicial Member Beena Pillai and Accountant Member Arun Khodpia, considered an appeal by Ashok Karusao Bokde against the reassessment order under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not applied his independent mind to the information received from the investigation wing, rendering the reassessment invalid. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.