PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.

396 ITR 5High Court2017#293 most cited

What is PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. authority for?

Reassessment based solely on information from the Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer conducting further inquiry or demonstrating an independent application of mind, is unjustified and invalid.

272

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. · reassessment · section 148 · investigation wing · accommodation entries · tangible material · assessing officer · application of mind · live link · section 147

Also reported as

83 Taxmann.com 348249 Taxmann 610

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 143(3)Section 151Section 1961Section 68Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

sanction under section 151material facts necessary for assessmentlive linksection 151(1)borrowed satisfactionsanctioning authorityfirst proviso to section 147non application of mindsection 151(2)tangible materialshare capital and share premiumnon-application of mind

Judgments citing PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.

Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 132/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri N.K.Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.132/Del/2018 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income E-104, Greater Kailash Enclave, Tax, Part-I, Circle-19(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. [Pan: Aaecp 6502F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Parmita Tripathy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2018

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita Tripathy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

…dependent mind in order to form reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment had not been fulfilled. 15. The ld. AR submitted that as per ratio of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. reported in 396 ITR 5 (Del), where information was received from investigation wing that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further inquiry was undertaken by AO, said information could not be said to be tangible material as per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis was not justified. Finally, the ld. AR submitted that the impugned initiation of…

Swati Verma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 3(4), Noida

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 42/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…n concluding that the initiation of the reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 to reopen the assessments for the assess- ment year 2004-05, was not legal.” 7.4. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Delhi) has held as under : “The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 2008-09 and assessment was made under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer issued a 19 ITA.No.42/Del./2018 Smt. Swati Verma, New Delhi. notice for reassessment based on information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Zeco Aircon Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 5231/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2005-06 Dcit, Circle- 18(1), Zeco Aircon Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Dda, New Delhi. Shopping Complex, Vs. Near Sindhi School, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…e Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. reported in 395 ITR 677, Pr.CIT vs. G&G Pharma reported in 384 ITR 147, Pr.CIT vs. Sabh Infrastructure reported in 398 ITR 19 and Pr.CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. reported in 396 ITR 5, he submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above decisions has categorically held that reopening of the assessment on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer is invalid. He accordingly submitted that since the assessment in the instant case has been reopened on the…

Bhavya Gold Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

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

ITA 1391/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Bhavya Gold Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 25, 2191/62, Gurudwara Road, New Delhi. Vs. Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Hiren MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…rate link between tangible material and formation of reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, re-assessment was not justified. 15. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. reported in 396 ITR 5, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where information was received from investigation wing that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further enquiry was undertaken by Assessing Officer, said information could not be said to be tangible material per se and, thus, re-assessment on said ba…

Plb Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

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

ITA 1390/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Plb Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 25, 249-250, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Hiren MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

…rate link between tangible material and formation of reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, re-assessment was not justified. 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. reported in 396 ITR 5, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where information was received from investigation wing that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further enquiry was undertaken by Assessing Officer, said information could not be said to be tangible material per se and, thus, re-assessment on said ba…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. S.K. Caterers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1647/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2010-11] The I.T.O Vs. M/S S.K. Caterers Pvt. Ltd Ward 22(1) A-47, Mayapuri, Phase - I New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaics 7280 H Co No. 302/Del/2015 [A/O Ita No. 1647/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S S.K. Caterers Pvt. Ltd Vs. The I.T.O A-47, Mayapuri, Phase - I Ward 22(1) New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaics 7280 H [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Tewari – Sr DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…estion framed is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed but with no orders as to costs.” 12. In another case of RMG Polyvinyl India Ltd the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in 396 ITR 5 has held as under: “Information received from Investigation Wing could not be said to be tangible material per se without a further inquiry being undertaken by the Assessing Officer to establish link between tangible material and formation of reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and consequently, re assessment was unjustified.” 13…

Moti Adhesives P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 68

…48 of the Act. Following case laws are relied by Ld. AR to challenge reopening action u/s 148: i) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in G&G Pharma 384 ITR 147 ii) Hon’ble Delhi Hihg Court in Meenakshi Overseas 395 ITR 677; iii) Hon’ble Delhi high court in RMG Polyvinyl 396 ITR 5 ; iv) Hon’ble Delhi high court Sabh Infrastructure 398 ITR 198 3.1 It was specifically pleaded that merely reopening on basis of directions of Investigation Wing cannot justify the reopening action made u/s 148 of the Act which requires independent application of mind. Further it was highlighted with reference to reasons that one major weakness in…

Gorika Investment and Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3396/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3396/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 M/S Gorika Investment & Vs Income Tax Officer, Exports (P) Ltd., 531Sg Ward-10(2), Complex, Dc Chowk Market, New Delhi Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg2462K Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., Sh. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Adv. & Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.02.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-35, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234Section 68Section 69C

…015 order dated 22.04.2016 " R.K. Garg Developers (P) Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No. 6558/Del/2014 order dated 31.08.2016 " Amsa India (P) Ltd. Vs CIT 393 ITR 157 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Vs Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs ITO 395 ITR 677 (Del.) " CIT Vs RMG Plyvinyl (I) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 (Del.) " R.P. Foam Home (P) Ltd. Vs ITO in WP(C) 7601/2017 dated 29.08.2017 " Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs ACIT 398 ITR 198 " CIT Vs M/s Jet Speed Audio (P) Ltd. 372 ITR 762 (Bom.) " M/s M. S. Software (P) Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No. 2708/Del/2016 " Basesar Properties (P) Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA Nos. 5750 & 5751/Del/2016 order dated 18.08.2017 " Zikarpur Esta…

Sunil Agarwal, Haridwar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3)(3), Haridwar

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year : 2008-09 Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar Laxmi Niwas, Near Post Office, Kankhal, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Pan: Aanpa0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush KrFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 SUNIL AGARWAL, Vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(3), HARIDWAR LAXMI NIWAS, NEAR POST OFFICE, KANKHAL, HARIDWAR UTTARAKHAND (PAN: AANPA0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush Kr. Kamal, Adv. Department by : Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Hladwani on 16.11.2017 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09 on…

Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 865/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Up-12, Pitampura, Ward-8(4), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics7889N Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…to disclose true and full material facts or regarding the fact that any income had escaped assessment. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Pr. CIT Vs Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 " Pr. CIT Vs RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 5 " Pr. CIT Vs G & G Pharma India Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del.) " Sabharwal Properties Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (2016) 382 ITR 547 (Del.) " CIT Vs Independent Media Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 108/2015 order dated 19.11.2015 " ITO Vs Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 4613/Del/2010 order dated 24.08.2016 9 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. " Pr. CIT Vs G &…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Mrs Jagjit Kaur, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5994/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR
Section 148

…rain (order dated 27/06/2017) for maintainability of application filed under rule 27. As far as invalidity of reopening is concerned, for non application of mind, recent decision in case of Meenakshi overseas reported at 395 ITR 677, RMG Polyvinyl reported at 396 ITR 5, and similar fact -based order passed by Hyderabad bench of ITAT in case of Madhucon order dated 15/07/2015 is strongly relied, the paragraph 10 thereof which is squarely applicable in present facts is reproduced below for sake of ready reference: “...10. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer is not bound to blindly…

Sanjeev Jain, Haridwar vs. ITO, Roorkee

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on ground No

ITA 3812/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishisanjeev Jain, Vs. Ito, M/S. Arihant Ayurvedic Centre, Ward-2, Town Mangalpur, Tehsil Roorkee, Roorkee, Haridwar Pan:Arepj2566R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 50CSection 68

…t no return has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08, whereas the first line of the assessment order speaks that assessee has filed his return of income on 31.03.2009, therefore, he referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 396 ITR 5 in case of Pr. CIT Vs. RMG Polymeline (I) Ltd wherein, it has been held that where the information is received from Investigation Wing could not be said to be a tangible material per se without a further enquiry undertaken by the Assessing Officer to establish a link between tangible material and formation a reason to believe that income had been e…