Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated after four years based on a 'change of opinion' or on information that was already available during the original scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer must possess fresh, tangible material to form a bona fide 'reason to believe' that income escaped assessment.

ORDER

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi [“ld. CIT(A)”] dated 18.09.2025 arising out of the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 07.12.2019 for A.Y. 2012-13.

2. Brief facts of the case are the assessee has filed its return of income on 24.03.2013, declaring total income at Rs. 30,97,670/-. The case was selected for scrutiny for the reason that assessee has received large share capital and share premium during the year. Thereafter the details were called for from time to time and after considering the same, the proceedings were completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2015 by accepting the income declared by the assessee. Thereafter, the case of assessee is reopened on the basis of information supplied by the investigation wing wherein it is alleged that assessee had taken share capital of Rs. 5.00 crores from two entities, namely M/s Mithilanchal Investments and Finance Pvt Ltd. and M/s White Collar Management Pvt. Ltd. as accommodation entries based on the statements of one, Shri Himanshu Verma recorded during the course of search conducted u/s 132 of the Act in his case on 29.03.2012. The AO thereafter, proceeded to complete the reassessment proceedings and the reassessment order was passed wherein an addition of Rs. 5.00 crores was made to the total income of the assessee.

3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on legal issues and on merits of the additions.

4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal by taking various grounds of appeal.

5. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 2 to 4 are with respect to the legality of reopening of the assessment therefore, they are taken together for consideration.

6. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the case of assessee was earlier selected for scrutiny for the reason “large share capital” and the original assessment was completed after making independent inquiries by issue summons u/s 133(6) of the Act to the share applicants. The applicants in response to the notices issued, had filed the necessary details and after considering those submissions, the AO has taken no adverse inference with respect to the share capital received by the assessee during the year under appeal. Thereafter, solely based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, the AO has initiated the reassessment proceedings by recording the reasons. Ld. AR submits that in the reasons recorded, the AO simply reproduced the information supplied by the Investigation Wing without making any independent inquiry whatsoever before initiating the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. Ld. AR further submits that when the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 26.03.2015 and as per AO, search was carried out in the case of Shri Himanshu Verma on 29.03.2012 and the information collected during the search was circulated to various Range heads vide letter dated 20.02.2014, therefore, it cannot be said that such information was not available with the Assessing Officer when the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.

7. Ld. AR further submits that the lower authorities have reopened the case of the assessee on mere borrowed satisfaction and no independent satisfaction was recorded by making any independent inquiry by the