ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur

224 ITR 362Supreme Court of India1997#1261 most cited

What is ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur authority for?

Information received from the investigation wing constitutes valid 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, provided the Assessing Officer applies their mind to the material and does not act mechanically. Prompt issuance of a notice based on such information does not automatically imply a lack of due diligence or borrowed satisfaction.

90

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur · 224 ITR 362 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · escapement of income · information from investigation wing · borrowed satisfaction · application of mind · validity of reassessment · reopening assessment

Also reported as

90 Taxmann 641

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 144Section 142(1)Section 263Section 69ASection 131(1A)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 46asection 147(a)section 147(1)section 147(b)section 129full and true disclosuresection 131(1a)live linkprincipal officersanctioning authorityborrowed satisfactionmaterial facts necessary for assessment

Judgments citing ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur

Prakash B. Thakur, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1765/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha (DR)
Section 143Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 information received by the AO is in our considered view sufficient to form the belief that the income of the assessee has escaped. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Income Tax Officer vs. Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr 224 ITR 362 has upheld action of AO in reopening the assessment u/s 147(b) of tha Act on the basis of letter written by DDI (Inv) to jurisdictional IAC containing relevant facts and information without any further investigation. Hence, we do not find any merit in the contention of the assessee. We therefore dismiss Ground Nos. 2 to 4 raised by the assessee.…

Dolchand Kallaji & Naresh Traders (Jv), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1172/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. Pai (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. DR)
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…hrough DGIT (Inv.) to the effect that the assessee had obtained bogus bills/entries from different entities, who were indulged in issuing bogus bills to various parties without delivering any goods. In Income Tax Officer Vs. Purushottam Das Bangur and another 224 ITR 362, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that ITO was justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147(b) on the basis of letter written by Dy. Director of Inspection (Investigation) to jurisdictional IAC containing relevant facts and information. In the said case, notice was issued by the ITO on the basis of letter/information received from DDI (Inv.).…

DCIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rizvi Land Developments P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5840/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit-13(3)(1), M/S Rizvi Land Developments Pvt. Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Rizvi House, Hill Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 177/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Rizvi Land Developments The Dcit-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Rizvi House (1St Floor), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 133Section 143Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL (VP) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The DCIT-13(3)(1), M/s Rizvi Land Developments Pvt. Room No. 229, 2nd Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Rizvi House, Hill Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050 PAN: AAACR4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 177/MUM/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Rizvi Land Developments The DCIT-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, 2nd Floor, Rizvi House (1st Floor), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 PAN: AA…

M/S. Maverick Electronics (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1835/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2003-04 Maveric Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward No.6(3) C/O M/S D Ostwal & Associates, Fca New Delhi 303-304, Dhaka Chambers 2068/38, Naiwala Karolbagh New Delhi 110 005 Pan: Aaach 9596 B

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Ostwal, C.A. and Sh. Rishabh Ostwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 151(1)

…the AO has formed a prima facie opinion by applying his mind to the facts of this case and thereafter recorded reasons for re-opening as there was escapement of income. 2.3. He relied on the following case laws. i. ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur and another, 224 ITR 362 (SC) ii. Midland Fruit and Vegetable Products (India) vs. CIT, 208 ITR 266 (Del.) 3. After hearing rival contentions we find that the AO has recorded the reasons for reopening as follows. “In this case, information has been received from the DIT (Investigation) New Delhi that the assessee has received an amount of Rs.1,28,00,000/- as follows.…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. O.J. Securities (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s C

ITA 3464/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2001-02 Ito, Ward 13(4) Vs. Oj Securities P Ltd. R.No.219, Cr Bldg. 1091 Js Place, 320 Delhi Gate Bazar New Delhi Asaf Ali Road New Delhi Pan: Aaaco 0994 L Cross Objection 292/Del/09 (In Ita No. 3464/Del/2009) A.Y. 2001-02 M/S Oj Securities P Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 13(4) New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sri Somil Aggarwal, Adv
Section 147Section 148Section 151

…e pursuant to information received from the DDIT and the AO on being satisfied that there is prima facie escapement of income, recorded reasons for reopening of assessment. He relied on the following case laws. ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur and Another (SC) 224 ITR 362 Midland Fruit and Vegetable Products (India) Pvt.Ltd. 208 ITR 266 He prayed that the reopening be upheld. He also made submissions on merits by relying on the order of the A.O. 5. After hearing rival submission we find the reasons recorded are as follows. “The Investigation Wing, New Delhi has sent a detailed information regarding entry operato…

Speco Tech Roofing and Celling System Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing & Celling Vs Dcit, System Pvt. Ltd., C/O Bhati Central Circle-Ii, Wadhwa & Co., Cas, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near Mcf Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, Nit Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7152F Assessee By : Sh. K. C. Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad.

For Appellant: Sh. K. C. Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…arly shows that the appellant has taken accommodation entries from Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain Group of cases during the F.Y. 2007-08. The quantum of entries i.e. 20 Lacs has been specifically mentioned. In fact in the case of ITO vs Purshottam Dass Bangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that letter from Deputy Director (Investigation) constitutes information and reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. In fact herein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that merely because the notice was sent on the next day of the receipt of the information from the DDIT(Inv.) doe…

M/S. Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4353/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4353/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/106, Sector-16, Rohini, Ward-5(2), Delhi-110085 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck7376A Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-36, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 68

…13. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observation made by the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " ITO Vs Purushottam Das Bangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 " Midland Fruit & Vegetable Products (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (1994) 208 ITR 266 (Delhi) 14. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the AO issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act on the information received from the office of the C…

Vinod K.Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1736/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…original assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion as held in the following judgements: 1. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 3. ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC) In the light of the above discussion, the contention of the assessee that the present case is of change of opinion has to be rejected. 2.4.22 The second question arises for consideration is whether the appellant had made full and true disclosure of material facts. I have already reproduced above the contentions of the appellant in this regar…

Vinod K Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1264/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…original assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion as held in the following judgements: 1. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 3. ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC) In the light of the above discussion, the contention of the assessee that the present case is of change of opinion has to be rejected. 2.4.22 The second question arises for consideration is whether the appellant had made full and true disclosure of material facts. I have already reproduced above the contentions of the appellant in this regar…

M/S Quetzel Designs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1563/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. Nambirajan, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143Section 147Section 148

…Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pholchand Bajranglal Vs. ITO 203 ITR 456 (SC) that sufficiency of reasons for forming a belief cannot be adjudicated. Further, it has also been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITO Vs. Purushottam Das Bangore 224 ITR 362 (SC) and ITO Vs. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. P. Ltd. 217 ITR 597 that communication received by Assessing Officer in discharge of official duties is to be considered as information for issue of 147 notice.” assessment. Further, at the time of initiating the proceedings under section 147 of the Act and issuing the notice under section 148 what is…