8 entries · updated 2026-07-07
Reassessment under sections 147 to 151 is the most litigated corner of the Income-tax Act since the Finance Act 2021 rewrote it. A valid reopening now has to clear a sequence of gates: information suggesting escapement, a section 148A(b) show-cause, a reasoned 148A(d) order, sanction from the correct authority under section 151, and, after the 2022 Scheme, the faceless route mandated by section 151A. A defect at any gate is fatal to everything after it.
The rulings collected here map where the gates actually fail in practice: notices served beyond limitation, sanctions granted without application of mind, approvals from the wrong authority for the elapsed period, reopenings issued by the Jurisdictional AO where the faceless mechanism was mandatory, and notices that ignore an approved resolution plan or target a joint holder who contributed nothing to the purchase.
Each note states the one-line holding first, then the facts, the issue and what a practitioner should do differently on the next file. Every note is reviewed by a retired officer of the Income Tax Department who has sat on the sanctioning side of these very provisions.
Working one of these files right now? Reassessment & Section 148 Support for CA Firms →
Not always. Where an uneducated non-taxpayer was unaware of online notices, the reassessment violated natural justice and was set aside despite eight years' delay.
No. Where the joint owner made no financial contribution to the purchase, there is no basis to reopen her assessment.
No. On NCLT approval of a resolution plan, all governmental claims, including income-tax dues, stand conclusively discharged; later §148 notices are invalid.
No. Where the AO fails to verify the authenticity of the triggering information, the §148 notice and consequent assessment are quashed.
The notice is void ab initio. Beyond the three-year limit, sanction must come from the prescribed higher authority; PCIT approval did not suffice.
Yes. Where the §151 approval records no reasons and refers to no material, the sanction and the §148 notice fall together.
No. A §148 notice served on 28-12-2021 by affixture, beyond the statutory period, is invalid; the reassessment was quashed.
No. A §148 reopening issued by the JAO without the §151A faceless mechanism is unsustainable; the Supreme Court dismissed the Department's SLP.