The same cash deposits were already reassessed and accepted at nil. Can they reopen them again?
No. The Orissa High Court held that where an earlier s.147 proceeding examined these very deposits, found them disclosed and assessed at NIL, and that order went unchallenged, a second reassessment on identical material is a change of opinion and an impermissible review.
Decided by the High Court (Orissa High Court, Division Bench — Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman (judgment delivered by Murahari Sri Raman, J.)) on 2026-02-24, reported as [2026] 184 taxmann.com 475 (Orissa); W.P.(C) No. 28067 of 2025. It bears on section 147, section 148, section 148A, section 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Reassessment & Reopening matters.
An Orissa High Court Division Bench decision binding in Odisha, applying nemo debet bis vexari to reassessment: a successor officer cannot sit in judgment over a view already taken on the facts by a competent authority. It is directly useful where duplicate PANs or misreported bank data throw up the same transaction twice, as happened here with deposits of Rs. 4.42 crore recorded against a PAN the firm had stopped using. The Court also rejected the argument that the interest of revenue justifies a second look, holding that finality of adjudication is itself part of sound tax administration.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee is a partnership firm in Cuttack trading in cattle feed and building materials. Two PANs had been allotted to it, but it had consistently filed returns under the second PAN since AY 2003-04. Cash deposits of Rs. 4,42,47,290 made with Canara Bank during FY 2018-19 were recorded against the first PAN. The Income Tax Officer initiated reassessment for AY 2019-20 in respect of those deposits, examined them, found they had already been disclosed in the returns filed under the correct PAN, and by order dated 30 March 2023 assessed the income at NIL. That order was never challenged. In 2025 the Deputy Commissioner initiated fresh reassessment proceedings for the same assessment year, treating the identical Rs. 4,42,47,290 as escaped income.
The order under s.148A(3) dated 24 June 2025, the s.148 notice dated 30 June 2025 and the s.144B intimation dated 25 July 2025 were quashed and set aside and the writ petition allowed. The same transaction — cash deposits of Rs. 4,42,47,290 in Canara Bank for AY 2019-20 — cannot be made the subject-matter of assessment under s.147 twice, once by the ITO and again by the DCIT, where the ITO's assessment order of 30 March 2023 assessing the income at nil had attained finality and was never challenged or overturned. The Court expressly declined to decide the assessee's other grounds and left any question of law arising on the facts open (para 11).
The Court first held the writ maintainable notwithstanding the alternative remedy, relying on CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal and Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., because the challenge went to the DCIT's jurisdiction to redo an exercise the ITO had already completed with the assessee's participation, and the facts were undisputed (paras 5, 5.1, 5.5). On the merits it found on the face of the notices and orders that the ITO had, on the same Canara Bank deposits, verified the books, returns and bank accounts, accepted that the receipts stood disclosed in the return filed under the second PAN, and assessed the income at nil, while the DCIT sought to reopen the identical transaction on the identical footing (paras 6.4, 6.10, 8) — a fact the Senior Standing Counsel conceded (para 6.5). The same transaction cannot be assessed under s.147 twice (para 6.6), and the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa fits the context (para 6.7). Because the ITO's order had attained finality and was not shown to have been challenged or reversed, there was no occasion for the DCIT to start again (para 6.11); the doctrine of finality of adjudication must be maintained once a proceeding has concluded with the assessee's participation, and no exception exists in favour of the Department (para 6.12). The Court added that the material on which the Assessing Officer forms his opinion must not be the material already considered, since reopening on the same material is review on a change of opinion and impermissible, and that concluded assessments cannot be reopened on suspicion or ipse dixit (paras 7, 7.1). The DCIT's own s.148A(3) order recorded the earlier nil assessment yet proceeded 'to protect the interest of revenue', a reason the Court called self-conflicting (para 9). The Court drew support from CIT v. Sanjay Kumar Garg and Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. v. ITO, while noting that in those cases a reassessment was still pending whereas here the earlier notice had 'reached its destination' in a completed assessment order (paras 6.14 to 6.16).
This Court may observe that a quasi judicial authority at a subsequent stage should not sit over the view expressed on facts in earlier assessment proceeding on the same subject matter adjudicated upon by another quasi judicial authority.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Orissa High Court held that where an earlier s.147 proceeding examined these very deposits, found them disclosed and assessed at NIL, and that order went unchallenged, a second reassessment on identical material is a change of opinion and an impermissible review. This was decided by the High Court (Orissa High Court, Division Bench — Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman (judgment delivered by Murahari Sri Raman, J.)) and bears on section 147, section 148, section 148A, section 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2026] 184 taxmann.com 475 (Orissa); W.P.(C) No. 28067 of 2025. An Orissa High Court Division Bench decision binding in Odisha, applying nemo debet bis vexari to reassessment: a successor officer cannot sit in judgment over a view already taken on the facts by a competent authority. It is directly useful where duplicate PANs or misreported bank data throw up the same transaction twice, as happened here with deposits of Rs. 4.42 crore recorded against a PAN the firm had stopped using. The Court also rejected the argument that the interest of revenue justifies a second look, holding that finality of adjudication is itself part of sound tax administration. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Put the earlier reassessment order on record and show, line by line, that it dealt with the identical transaction and amount.
The assessee is a partnership firm in Cuttack trading in cattle feed and building materials. Two PANs had been allotted to it, but it had consistently filed returns under the second PAN since AY 2003-04. Cash deposits of Rs. 4,42,47,290 made with Canara Bank during FY 2018-19 were recorded against the first PAN. The Income Tax Officer initiated reassessment for AY 2019-20 in respect of those deposits, examined them, found they had already been disclosed in the returns filed under the correct PAN, and by order dated 30 March 2023 assessed the income at NIL. That order was never challenged. In 2025 the Deputy Commissioner initiated fresh reassessment proceedings for the same assessment year, treating the identical Rs. 4,42,47,290 as escaped income. The matter was decided on 2026-02-24 by the High Court (Orissa High Court, Division Bench — Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman (judgment delivered by Murahari Sri Raman, J.)). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The order under s.148A(3) dated 24 June 2025, the s.148 notice dated 30 June 2025 and the s.144B intimation dated 25 July 2025 were quashed and set aside and the writ petition allowed. The same transaction — cash deposits of Rs. 4,42,47,290 in Canara Bank for AY 2019-20 — cannot be made the subject-matter of assessment under s.147 twice, once by the ITO and again by the DCIT, where the ITO's assessment order of 30 March 2023 assessing the income at nil had attained finality and was never challenged or overturned. The Court expressly declined to decide the assessee's other grounds and left any question of law arising on the facts open (para 11).
The Court first held the writ maintainable notwithstanding the alternative remedy, relying on CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal and Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., because the challenge went to the DCIT's jurisdiction to redo an exercise the ITO had already completed with the assessee's participation, and the facts were undisputed (paras 5, 5.1, 5.5). On the merits it found on the face of the notices and orders that the ITO had, on the same Canara Bank deposits, verified the books, returns and bank accounts, accepted that the receipts stood disclosed in the return filed under the second PAN, and assessed the income at nil, while the DCIT sought to reopen the identical transaction on the identical footing (paras 6.4, 6.10, 8) — a fact the Senior Standing Counsel conceded (para 6.5). The same transaction cannot be assessed under s.147 twice (para 6.6), and the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa fits the context (para 6.7). Because the ITO's order had attained finality and was not shown to have been challenged or reversed, there was no occasion for the DCIT to start again (para 6.11); the doctrine of finality of adjudication must be maintained once a proceeding has concluded with the assessee's participation, and no exception exists in favour of the Department (para 6.12). The Court added that the material on which the Assessing Officer forms his opinion must not be the material already considered, since reopening on the same material is review on a change of opinion and impermissible, and that concluded assessments cannot be reopened on suspicion or ipse dixit (paras 7, 7.1). The DCIT's own s.148A(3) order recorded the earlier nil assessment yet proceeded 'to protect the interest of revenue', a reason the Court called self-conflicting (para 9). The Court drew support from CIT v. Sanjay Kumar Garg and Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. v. ITO, while noting that in those cases a reassessment was still pending whereas here the earlier notice had 'reached its destination' in a completed assessment order (paras 6.14 to 6.16). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "This Court may observe that a quasi judicial authority at a subsequent stage should not sit over the view expressed on facts in earlier assessment proceeding on the same subject matter adjudicated upon by another quasi judicial authority." The decision followed or applied CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [2013] 36 taxmann.com 36 (SC) / [2013] 357 ITR 357 (SC) — applied on maintainability despite alternative remedy; Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum Assessing Authority (2023) 3 SCR 871 — applied on maintainability; CIT v. Sanjay Kumar Garg [2015] 64 taxmann.com 334 (Delhi) — relied on to fortify the view; Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. v. ITO [2023] 146 taxmann.com 417 (Delhi) — relied on to fortify the view.
It was decided by the High Court on 2026-02-24 and is reported as [2026] 184 taxmann.com 475 (Orissa); W.P.(C) No. 28067 of 2025. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 147, section 148, section 148A, section 144B, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The order under s.148A(3) dated 24 June 2025, the s.148 notice dated 30 June 2025 and the s.144B intimation dated 25 July 2025 were quashed and set aside and the writ petition allowed. The same transaction — cash deposits of Rs. 4,42,47,290 in Canara Bank for AY 2019-20 — cannot be made the subject-matter of assessment under s.147 twice, once by the ITO and again by the DCIT, where the ITO's assessment order of 30 March 2023 assessing the income at nil had attained finality and was never challenged or overturned. The Court expressly declined to decide the assessee's other grounds and left any question of law arising on the facts open (para 11). It arises in Reassessment & Reopening matters, on section 147, section 148, section 148A, section 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Orissa High Court, Division Bench — Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman (judgment delivered by Murahari Sri Raman, J.). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Establish that the earlier order attained finality - not appealed, not revised, not set aside. Where two PANs exist, file the return-filing history under the PAN actually used and get the duplicate on record with the officer. Ask the officer to identify what material he holds that is different from the material already examined.
Validity check could not be completed. No later decision applying, following or affirming this judgment was found on the database, and the document carries no citator banner recording appellate treatment. The decision is recent (24 February 2026) and no SLP was traced. Absence of contrary authority is not the same as confirmation, so the status stays unverified. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
Decided 24 February 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 28067 of 2025 and reported at [2026] 184 taxmann.com 475 (Orissa); the earlier date confusion in secondary reports is resolved. The cause title names the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-I as first respondent, but the impugned action throughout is the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack's. The Court decided only the double-reassessment point and expressly left the other grounds and any question of law open (para 11), so this is not authority on approval, natural justice or the other pleas raised in the petition. The Court did not decide the assessee's remaining grounds, and left any question of law arising on the facts open (para 11). No appellate treatment has surfaced. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The order under s.148A(3) dated 24 June 2025, the s.148 notice dated 30 June 2025 and the s.144B intimation dated 25 July 2025 were quashed and set aside and the writ petition allowed. The same transaction — cash deposits of Rs. 4,42,47,290 in Canara Bank for AY 2019-20 — cannot be made the subject-matter of assessment under s.147 twice, once by the ITO and again by the DCIT, where the ITO's assessment order of 30 March 2023 assessing the income at nil had attained finality and was never challenged or overturned. The Court expressly declined to decide the assessee's other grounds and left any question of law arising on the facts open (para 11).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
How much am I actually required to disclose — and can they reopen because the officer drew the wrong conclusion?
The sanctioning authority just wrote 'yes' and signed. Is that a sanction?
A reassessment was done in between. Does the two-year clock for s.263 restart from it?