VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawIncome-tax Act 2025Chapter XVI › Section 285
Chapter XVIwas s.152

Section 285 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

Section 285 — Other provision. Successor to s.152 of the 1961 Act.

Where this section sits

Section 285 is in Chapter XVI — Procedure for Assessment, which runs from section 268 to section 301.

← Section 284  ·  Section 286 →

What this section does

Sub-section (1) fixes the rate in a reassessment: in an assessment, reassessment or recomputation made under section 279, tax is chargeable at the rate or rates at which it would have been charged had the income not escaped assessment. Sub-section (2) allows the proceeding to be stopped. Proceedings initiated under section 279 are to be dropped on a claim made by the assessee where he shows both that he had already been assessed on an amount not lower than what he would rightly be liable for, even taking into account the income said to have escaped assessment or a properly made assessment or computation, and that he has not impugned any part of the original assessment order for that tax year under section 356, 357 or 378. Sub-section (3) is the price of that claim: an assessee who makes it is not entitled to reopen matters concluded by an order under section 287, 288, 365(10), 368 or 377.

Why it is there

Reassessment is about income that escaped, not about a change of rate, so sub-section (1) freezes the rates at those that would have applied in the original year. Sub-section (2) then spares everyone a pointless exercise where the assessee has already been assessed on enough: if bringing in the escaped income would not increase the right liability, there is nothing to reassess. Sub-section (3) stops that concession being used as a route back into settled issues.

Who it applies to

What this means in practice

The claim under sub-section (2) has two limbs and both must be established by the assessee — the arithmetic that he has already been assessed on an amount not lower than his right liability, and the clean record that he has not challenged any part of the original assessment order under section 356, 357 or 378. A pending or decided appeal against any part of that order therefore defeats the claim entirely. Sub-section (3) makes the choice one-way: once the claim is made, matters already concluded by an order under section 287, 288, 365(10), 368 or 377 are shut, so the assessee gives up the ability to unsettle them in return for the proceeding being dropped. And sub-section (1) means a reassessment carries no rate advantage or disadvantage of its own — the rates are those that would have applied had the income never escaped.

An example

Illustrative only, and invented for this page. The figures are chosen to show the rule biting, not taken from any real matter.

An assessee is assessed on Rs. 90 lakh; a section 279 proceeding is later started on Rs. 8 lakh said to have escaped assessment. He shows that his correct liability, even after including the Rs. 8 lakh, would be on an amount no higher than the Rs. 90 lakh already assessed, and that he has filed no appeal or revision against any part of that assessment order. On that claim the proceeding is dropped under sub-section (2) — but sub-section (3) then bars him from reopening anything already concluded by an order under section 287, 288, 365(10), 368 or 377.

Where you meet this section

A taxpayer meets this section in a reassessment proceeding started by a notice under section 279, either in the tax computation of the resulting order or in a written claim filed to have that proceeding dropped.

The words themselves

the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates at which it would have been charged had the income not escaped assessment
Section 285(1), Income-tax Act, 2025.
he has not impugned any part of the original assessment order for the relevant tax year under section 356 or 357 or 378
Section 285(2)(b), Income-tax Act, 2025.

What people get wrong

What this replaced

The correspondence is the Income Tax Department’s own, from its comparison utility for the 1961 and 2025 Acts. A renumbering is the easy half; whether the words changed is the half that decides cases.

See the full 1961 to 2025 concordance.

Case law carried across

Read this before you rely on it. Every decision below was decided under the Income-tax Act, 1961. It appears here because it is tagged to a 1961 provision that the department’s own mapping carries to section 285. That is an inference we have drawn, not a holding on the new section: where the words changed in the move, the reasoning may not survive. Treat this as the place to start looking, not as authority on the 2025 Act.

Explainers

Read with

What this page does not tell you. It does not reproduce the section. Everything above was written from the section’s own text as the Income Tax Department publishes it — the text is here, and nothing here is advice on your facts. Where a figure matters, read the sub-section it comes from.