What is Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha authority for?

A valid reassessment under Section 147 requires concrete 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment, not mere suspicion or a desire to conduct fishing and roving enquiries. If the first proviso to Section 147 applies, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, not just a mere charge of bogus expenses.

How many judgments cite Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha?

363 judgments on BharatTax cite Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha (79 ITR 603), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 147, Section 151, Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 142(1).

Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha (79 ITR 603)

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai vs. P.Janakiraman, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2079/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2079/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri P. Janakiraman, Income Tax, New No. 2, Old No. 3, R-Block, Plot No. 3822, 6Th Avenue, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. [Pan:Aajpj1327J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Dated 23.06.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 Quashing The Reassessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…the formation of the belief that the income of the respondent chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the assessment year 1958-59 because of failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts; CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL V. S. P. CHALIHA [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) followed (ii) that since there was nothing to show that the confession of M.K, related to a loan to the assessee, much less to the loan which was shown to have 14 I.T.A. No. 2079/Chny/17 been advanced by that person to the respondent, in the first ground the live link or close nexus which should be there between the material before the Incom…

ACIT, Chennai vs. B.V.Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3293/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3293/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New No. 21/Old No. 10A, 1St Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 13.09.2008 Disclosing Total Income Of ₹.1,83,53,540/- After Setting Off Of Carry Forward Loss Of ₹.9,67,40,138/-.

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…the formation of the belief that the income of the respondent chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the assessment year 1958-59 because of failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts; CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL V. S. P. CHALIHA [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) followed 16 I.T.A. No. 3293/Chny/16 (ii) that since there was nothing to show that the confession of M.K, related to a loan to the assessee, much less to the loan which was shown to have been advanced by that person to the respondent, in the first ground the live link or close nexus which should be there between the material before the Inco…

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…Tax Officer [133 ITR 199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant re-opening. r. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : “Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must have either reasons to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 for any assessment year to the Income-tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his asse…

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Archive Realty Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit, Central Circle – 5(1) V. M/S. Archive Realty Developers Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor 324, Master Mind-Iv, Royal Palms Air India Building Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Nariman Point Mumbai - 400065 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aagca5488D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…ictional condition of compliance to S. 151 of the Act was not satisfied. While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha (79 ITR 603). 6. It was further contended that the Department has not produced any material other than the above referred document which is part of paper book no. 3 to demonstrate the application of mind by the CIT. In fact, the matter was adjourned by the Hon'ble Tribunal from time to time with a direction to the Department to produce further record to show…

Sri. H.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 601/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…ecision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 159 ITR 956. iv) Birla VXL Ltd v CIT, reported in 217 ITR Pg. 1. v) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ChhugamalRajpalVs. S.P.Chaliha and other, reported in 79 ITR 603. vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd., Vs. ITO & Others, reported in 130 ITR 1. vii) M/s. WEL Intertrade (P) Ltd and Another Vs. ITO, reported in 308 ITR 22(Delhi). viii)CIT Vs. Dr. N. TippaSetty in ITA No. 102, 105 & 106 of 2002, reported in 322 ITR 525 (Karn), wherein all the decisions have been considered and he…

Sri. M.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 600/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…ecision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 159 ITR 956. iv) Birla VXL Ltd v CIT, reported in 217 ITR Pg. 1. v) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ChhugamalRajpalVs. S.P.Chaliha and other, reported in 79 ITR 603. vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd., Vs. ITO & Others, reported in 130 ITR 1. vii) M/s. WEL Intertrade (P) Ltd and Another Vs. ITO, reported in 308 ITR 22(Delhi). viii)CIT Vs. Dr. N. TippaSetty in ITA No. 102, 105 & 106 of 2002, reported in 322 ITR 525 (Karn), wherein all the decisions have been considered and he…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7214/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

…cts. Sufficiency of material cannot be challenged but open to assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief or the belief is not bona fide one or based on based on vague ,irrelevant and non specific information. Court referred to CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL 79 ITR 603 SC where notice was issued based on CIT circular intimating name lenders, without any other material, court held mere information will not be sufficient. However, unlike general circular AG made enquires in case of Phoolchand Bajrariglal as to existence of party. Court also referred LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS 103 ITR 437 SC holding, a general statement wi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7213/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

…cts. Sufficiency of material cannot be challenged but open to assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief or the belief is not bona fide one or based on based on vague ,irrelevant and non specific information. Court referred to CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL 79 ITR 603 SC where notice was issued based on CIT circular intimating name lenders, without any other material, court held mere information will not be sufficient. However, unlike general circular AG made enquires in case of Phoolchand Bajrariglal as to existence of party. Court also referred LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS 103 ITR 437 SC holding, a general statement wi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7212/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

…cts. Sufficiency of material cannot be challenged but open to assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief or the belief is not bona fide one or based on based on vague ,irrelevant and non specific information. Court referred to CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL 79 ITR 603 SC where notice was issued based on CIT circular intimating name lenders, without any other material, court held mere information will not be sufficient. However, unlike general circular AG made enquires in case of Phoolchand Bajrariglal as to existence of party. Court also referred LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS 103 ITR 437 SC holding, a general statement wi…

M/S. Nitesh Estates Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1486/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…which the reassessment proceedings are to be initiated. He placed reliance on the following decision in support of this contention: 1. M/s. Calcutta Discount Co., reported in 41 ITR 191 [SC] 2. Gangasaran reported in 130 ITR 1 3. Chuharmal Rajpal reported in 79 ITR 603 [SC] 4. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437 [SC] 5. Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust vs. ACIT in ITA Nos. 552 & 553/Bang/2018 by order dt. 16.10.2020. Page 7 of 17 10. On the other hand, Ld.CIT.DR submitted that, the authority below was justified in reopening the assessment as assessee had incurred a loss of ₹ 1,02,42,949/- on surrende…

ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. M/S K.R. Pulp & Papers Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…s held as under: “9. The Court at the outset proposes to recapitulate the jurisdictional requirement for reopening of the assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act by referring to two decisions of the Supreme Court. In Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the AO had received certain communications from the Commissioner of Income Tax showing that the alleged creditors of the Assessee were "name-lenders and the transactions are bogus." The AO came to the conclusion that there were reasons to believe that income of the Assessee had escaped assessment. T…

Alankar Commodeal (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1257/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1257/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alankar Commodeal (P) Ltd..........................................…………………….……Appellant C/O Ca Bal Kishan Kedia, Bansal Complex, 1St Floor, Ram Nivas Talkies Chowk, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh-496001. [Pan: Aahca1771G] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 01, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.04.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Order Ex-Parte. 2. That Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law & Hence The Consequential Reassessment Order Is Also Illegal & Needs To Be Annulled. 3. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.2,50,50,000/- For The Share Capital Raised By The Assessee, Holding The Same To Be Unexplained Cash-Credit In Terms Of Sec.68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Addition Is Unjustified & Need To Be Deleted. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250Section 68

…S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 [SC] (iv) CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (2015) 56 taxmann.com 390 [MP-HC] (v) United Electrical Company (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 258 ITR 317 (Del-HC) (vi) Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha &Ors. 79 ITR 603 (SC) 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, had submitted that the aforesaid legal ground has been taken by the assessee for the first time and the same should not be admitted for adjudication. He has further submitted that since the assessee had failed to supply relevant information during the assessment year 2012-13 relating to the premium received…

Raghav Softech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…not the same ,as recording of reasons to believe for issuing a notice. The Assessing Officer has dearly substituted form for substance and, therefore, the action of the respondent fails foul of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal (1971) 79 ITR 603 which is clearly applicable to the facts of these appeals. • It is submitted that the report of the ITO(HQ) (I&CI),Lucknow if any, may be a source of investigation, and it is therefore, the law has placed a rider to it, before the report, being used as *material'' for subjecting the assesses to re-assessment proceedings, after receipt of report,…