← 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

H S Impex Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 148/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

that the AO has rightly assumed jurisdiction to make re-assessment by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of tangible material / information received from Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.-I), Faridabad based on outcome of inquiries in the matter of assessee, based

Panel Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1116/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessment. He further stated that in the case of assessee there was neither any independent application of mind by the AO nor any tangible material available on record to prove the fact that there was any escapement to the income of the assessee. He stated that the reopening as made

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

subsequently, recourse cannot be taken u/s s. 148 for formulation of a different view on the same set of facts. There should be some tangible material with the assessing officer to come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income. There is no new material which has come

Ritu Sikandar Khanna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(It), Mumbai

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

ITA 3481/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Bank account during the year under consideration, initiated the reassessment proceedings. We are of the considered view that the said information constitutes new and tangible material for initiating the reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee. In ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers

Lords Fincap Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 15(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6980/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Gulati, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 131

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, Sh

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle.1(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S.Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 154/AHD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 69A

appellant company u/s. 147 of the Act. The AR of the appellant further submitted that reopening of the case by the AO is without tangible material available with him for doubting the credit entries (other than cash deposits) in the bank account no. 10763 with the Social Co-Op. Bank ... cash deposited in the said bark account would have not been possible. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there was no new tangible material available with the AO which can lead to re-opening of the case u/s 147 of the Act. Moreover there is change of opinion

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

assessee has purchased shares of M/s Greencrest Financial Services Limited. c) On this basis the assessee’s case was brought under assessment without any tangible material on record and on basis of information and statement of third party. THE SUMMARY TO DETAILS, FACTS AND EXPLANATIONS IN THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER ... credit, from the material facts on record were quite evident that it was from the sale of shares. As there was no tangible material brought on record to convert these transactions then it is very difficult to treat the sale proceeds of the shares as unexplained cash credit

Shri Shivajirao R.Chavan, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(2), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

cases have to provide basis of belief of escapement of income year specific. 16. Further the AO’s belief must be based on some tangible material, having a live link or nexus with the income allegedly escaping assessment. Reassessment cannot be resorted to on the basis of vague, indefinite

The ITO, Ward-13(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Shivajirao R.Chavan, Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 332/AHD/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

cases have to provide basis of belief of escapement of income year specific. 16. Further the AO’s belief must be based on some tangible material, having a live link or nexus with the income allegedly escaping assessment. Reassessment cannot be resorted to on the basis of vague, indefinite

V City Builders and Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO 30(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3289/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal & V City Builders & Ito-30(3)(5), Developers Llp, Kautilya Bhavan, बनाम/ 10 Jayambbe Co-Op Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai-400051. 3Rd Liberty Garden X Lane, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfv3123C (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwalkumar Chavhan Sr. DR
Section 148

erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of the Id. A.O. and not directing the Id. A.O. to provide the tangible material to the appellant. 4 V City Builders and Developers LLP, Mumbai c) Your appellant prays that, without furnishing all requisite evidences and reasonable time

Rohit Manohar Shetty, Mumbai vs. ACIT 35(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2914/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Arvind PintoFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

DDIT(Investigation), Unit-6(2), Mumbai initiated the reassessment proceedings. We are of the considered view that the said information constitutes new and tangible material for initiating the reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee and on the basis of the aforesaid information, the AO initiated proceedings under section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Vasudeva Realtors Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 728/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusdan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

required to be confirmed in the hands of the assessee. 7. Per contra, ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that no fresh / tangible material was found during the course of search which has taken place in the premises of the assessee on 14.07.2016. The material which was impounded ... amount received by assessment 6 towards extra / alteration works done and brought the amount of Rs.30,86,087/- to tax. 9.1. Admittedly, no fresh / tangible material has been brought to our notice by the ld. DR or by the Assessing Officer based on which the addition of remaining amount

D.C.I.T., CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Navin Construction & Credit Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 68

assessee to the Assessing Officer. The fact remains that the Assessing Officer had power to reopen the assessment provided there was some tangible material on the basis of which he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 7.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court

Manish Kumudchandra Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2679/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Mrugakshi JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Appellant had taken accommodation entry to the tune of INR 2,25,87,732/-. In our view, the Assessing Officer had sufficient new tangible material in the form of information/report received from 3 the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Mumbai for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings under Section ... loan amount of INR 2,25,87,732/-. While we reject the contention of the Appellant that the Assessing Officer did not have new tangible material to initiate reassessment proceedings, we hold that the Assessing Officer did not have sufficient material to make the addition

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Cheryl Advisory Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2063/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Tanzil Padvekar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 153C

stage of recording reasons. at the stage of recording reasons. In the instant case there is a the instant case there is a tangible material received from the material received from the M/s Cheryl Advisory Pvt. Ltd. 16 reliable source and which has been gathered source and which has been

JCIT (OSD), I/C DCIT, Circle-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed and appeal/CO of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1897/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. Cross Objection No. 80/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Tata Aia Life बिधम/ Jt. Commissioner Of Insurance Co. Ltd. Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Dcit, Circle-8(3)(1) Peninsula Business Park, Aaykar Bhavan, Room Senapati, Bapat Marg, No. 615, M. K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai- New Marine Lines, 400013. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1759/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Circle-8(3)(1) 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. .

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das (DR)
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 44

reopening the assessment would have to be regarded as a mere change of opinion which has also not been based on any tangible material. Consequently, we hold that the reopening of the assessment is contrary to law. The Petition would have, therefore, to be allowed". Respectfully following the above

DCIT- 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1759/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. 615, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai- 400020. Vs. बनाम / M/S. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013. Cross Objection No. 80/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013. बनाम / Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. 615, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1759/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Vs. Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. 615, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai- 400020. M/S. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das (DR)
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 44

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1757/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 44

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

G.J. Holding Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1171/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1171/Chandi/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 G.J. Holding Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Ludhiana C/O G.S. Auto International Limited, G.S. Estate, G.T. Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacg6664K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri P.K. Goel & Sunil Arora, C.As राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2024 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.07.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana[Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘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 2. Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Goel & Sunil Arora, C.AsFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

from investigation wing that assessee wasbeneficiary of accommodation entries but no further inquiry was undertakenby AO, said information could not be said to be tangible material as per seand, thus, reassessment on said basis was not justified". Also Refer : Johri Lal HUF VS. CIT 88 ITR 439 (SC) ; Sheo Nath ... Officer, therefore, reopened the assessment. 9.2 However, in his objections, the assessee had stated that the Assessing Officer did not have any cogent or tangible material to form belief that the assessee had introduced unaccounted income in the grab of share application money. That the Assessing Officer has simply relied

Asif Khan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(3), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1048/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

borrowed, no separate enquiry was conducted by the ld. AO after receiving the reply ofnotice U/s 131 and there are no tangible materials in record for reopening U/s 147 of the Act. So, the assessment U/s 148 is non est. 5 I.T.A. No. 1048/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Asif Khan