← All Phrases

“tangible material”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1472,812 judgments

The decision most relied on for tangible material is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on tangible material

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
256 ITR 1 · 2002 · High Court
439
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment under Section 147 based on a mere change of opinion regarding the same material available during the original assessment. Reopening requires fresh, tangible material or information that leads to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment.

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.
354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court
366
citing judgments

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.
384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court
274
citing judgments

An assessment can be reopened if there is tangible material indicating escapement of income, demonstrating a live link between the material and the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessing Officer must apply their mind to the material facts, and the sanction under section 151 should not be based on borrowed satisfaction.

PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.
396 ITR 5 · 2017 · High Court
272
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Foramer France
264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court
253
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT
308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court
248
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

Judgments citing tangible material

ITO, International Taxation Ward1(2), Chennai vs. Rajamanickam Arulselvan, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 479/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.479/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & C.O. No. 44/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 479/Chny/2023] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajamanickam Arulselvan, 65, Defence Officer Colony, 2Nd International Taxation Ward 1(2), Bsnl Building Tower-1, 4Th Floor, Avenue, 6Th Cross Street, Guindy, Greams Road, Thousand Light, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aappa2346C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manjunatha, G.: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, Dated 22.02.2023 Passed In Ita No. 10039/Cit(A)-16/2012-2013 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On The Facts, The Merits Of The Case & Provisions Of Law As Well & Hence Unsustainable. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Failing To Appreciate That When The Assessee Had Applied For Conversion Of The Vacant Land Into A Plotted

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 45(3)

assessee has challenged reopening of assessment on the ground that the assessment has been reopened on change of opinion without there being any fresh tangible material came to the possession of the Assessing Officer after completion of original assessment order under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee also ... only condition to be seen is with regard to the legality of reopening 14 I.T.A. No.479/Chny/23 & C.O. No. 44/Chny/23 based on the tangible material on which reasons recorded that there is an escapement of income was formed by the Assessing Officer. In the present case, reasons for reopening assessment

Tikkavarapu Venkatram Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1841/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment is not in accordance with the provisions of I.T law in as much as there is no tangible material on record. 2. The Assessing Officer erred both in law and on facts in relying on third party statements while making addition of Rs.2

Tikkavarapu Venkatram Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1840/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment is not in accordance with the provisions of I.T law in as much as there is no tangible material on record. 2. The Assessing Officer erred both in law and on facts in relying on third party statements while making addition of Rs.2

Tikkavarapu Venkatram Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1839/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment is not in accordance with the provisions of I.T law in as much as there is no tangible material on record. 2. The Assessing Officer erred both in law and on facts in relying on third party statements while making addition of Rs.2

Tikkavarapu Vinayak Ravi Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1838/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment is not in accordance with the provisions of I.T law in as much as there is no tangible material on record. 2. The Assessing Officer erred both in law and on facts in relying on third party statements while making addition of Rs.2

Tikkavarapu Vinayak Ravi Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1836/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment is not in accordance with the provisions of I.T law in as much as there is no tangible material on record. 2. The Assessing Officer erred both in law and on facts in relying on third party statements while making addition of Rs.2