← 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

M/S. Sabari Developers, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

ITA 5388/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Satish Kumar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, D.R
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151

investigation wing, personal statements on oath and merely repeating the facts recorded by the investigation wing without establishing any direct link between the tangible material and the formation of the reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. (vi) Without disposing off the objections raised

Cricket Australia, Australia vs. DCIT, Int, Taxation Circle-1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 605/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194E

assessment under Section 147 of the Act clearly reveals that the formation of belief has neither any live link or nexus with any tangible material available on record rather the reasons recorded are based on non- existent/completely irrelevant facts. In fact, while disposing of the objections of the assessee questioning

Mah Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

ITA 279/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

mentioned above, of Jurisdictional High Court as ‘Well as other Courts also substantiate this fact that the information received from Investigation Wing is a tangible material for initiating the reassessment proceedings in the case of any assessee. In view of this, the objection raised by AO is not acceptable

Ratnashri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi

ITA 1607/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 141(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

/undisputed fact that same is in nature share capital/share premium in hands of assessee herein ; fourthly reasons are not based on any valid /actionable “tangible” material sans which reopening u/s 147/148 can not be made ; fifthly reasons are merely in nature of conjecture and surmises and suspect which ... element/ingredient in said appraisal report information; and further same is stale information already available prior to reopening action and do not meet criteria of tangible material, so expansion of reopening is totally illegal and unlawful;” 4.1 Ld. DR however defended the alleged illegality in the jurisdictional exercise

M/S. Premji Valji & Sons (Jewellers) P. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The DCIT, Circle - 2 (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 257/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant, Judic Member आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.257 & 223/Rjt/2022 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S Premji Valji & Sons D.C.I.T, (Jewellers) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Circle-2(1), “Kuvarjibhai Tower” Rakot. Palace Road, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaccp2555N

For Appellant: Shri Ranjit Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

alleged that the assessee has made bogus purchases from M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. Undisputedly, the report from the investigation wing is a tangible material which was not available to the Assessing Officer during the proceedings carried out on the earlier occasions. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court ... exercise undertaken by other wings of the Government departments, if the material so collected through inquiry or investigation provides prima-facie information, a tangible material; which enables the Assessing Officer to form a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. There is nothing to prevent the Assessing Officer

Amit Ashok Agrawal, Indore vs. ITO-2(2), Indore

In the result, the quantum appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal of assesse is allowed

ITA 210/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 271A

Addition Rs. 7,03,838/-) 8.1 Thus, the AO has made this addition on the basis of presumption and assumption and without having any tangible material to indicate that the withdrawal made from the bank account was either utilized for business purpose or representing the business receipts of the assesse

Amit Ashok Agrawal, Indore vs. ITO-2(2), Indore

In the result, the quantum appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal of assesse is allowed

ITA 209/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 271A

Addition Rs. 7,03,838/-) 8.1 Thus, the AO has made this addition on the basis of presumption and assumption and without having any tangible material to indicate that the withdrawal made from the bank account was either utilized for business purpose or representing the business receipts of the assesse

Chheda Specialities Foods Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-12(1)-4, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2305/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhchheda Specialities Vs. Ito-12(1)(4) Foods Pvt. Ltd. 145A, Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. 7, Bmc Ind M. K. Road, Estate, Sai Nagar, Churchgate, Mg Road No. 1, Mumbai-400020 Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccc6221G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Singh
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 37

this order the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi held that where the reason failed to demonstrate link between the tangible material and form of reason to believe income of escaped assessment then consequently reassessment is unjustified. Following the decision of Hon‟ble High Courts we consider that

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Sohni Depak Tanna, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2245/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm C.O.No. 135/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Sohni Dipak Tanna Ito 1(1)(1), Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Tanna House, 11A, 534, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nathlal Parekh Marg, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acept3611J Sohni Dipak Tanna Ito 1(1)(1), Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Tanna House, 11A, 534, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nathlal Parekh Marg, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acept3611J Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal & Pankaj Jain Revenue By : Shri. Kishor Dhule Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal & PankajFor Respondent: Shri. Kishor Dhule
Section 10Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

four years of the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. For reopening of the assessment there was a tangible material available with the assessing officer in the form of information of assessment in case of another assessee received from Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... above sum. In view of the above facts, the learned assessing officer in the form of information from other sources had a tangible material to reopen the assessment. On the details available in the form of information, the learned assessing officer also made his own enquiry by verification

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2334/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AdvaniFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

material found during a tax audit or with material found during examining a case of tax evasion. In fact the basis of fresh tangible material is unqualified i.e. the source of the material could be from any place, however, the only pre- condition is that on the basis

Jagdish R. Mookhey, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(2)_4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3152/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Us Is, Whether The ‘Reasons Recorded’ By The Ld. Ao U/S.148 Were Communicated To The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Or Not. Here In This Case, This Issue Was Adjudicated By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 29/11/2013 Wherein, The Tribunal Has Held That, As Per The Order Sheet Entry Dated 08/12/2009, The Reasons For Reopening Was Given By Ld A.O Vide Letter Dated 18/12/2009 Alongwith Show-Cause Notice U/S.142(1). However, This Finding Of The Tribunal Was Challenged Before The Hon’Ble High Court Wherein The Hon’Ble High Court Has Set Aside This Issue To The Tribunal Vide Judgment & Order Dated 06/12/2016 In Income Tax Appeal No.965 Of 2014. For The Sake Of Ready Reference, The Entire Judgment Of The High Court Is Reproduced Hereunder:- 1. This Appeal Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act") Challenges The Order Dated 29Th November 2013. Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("The Tribunal') The Impugned Order Is In Respect Of Assessment Year 2005-06

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 260A

circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in reopening of assessment although there was no new tangible material evidence brought on record by the Respondent A.O? 3 Question No. 1. (a) It is case of the appellant that the reasons in support

ITO 11(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Jagdish R. Mookhey, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2956/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Us Is, Whether The ‘Reasons Recorded’ By The Ld. Ao U/S.148 Were Communicated To The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Or Not. Here In This Case, This Issue Was Adjudicated By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 29/11/2013 Wherein, The Tribunal Has Held That, As Per The Order Sheet Entry Dated 08/12/2009, The Reasons For Reopening Was Given By Ld A.O Vide Letter Dated 18/12/2009 Alongwith Show-Cause Notice U/S.142(1). However, This Finding Of The Tribunal Was Challenged Before The Hon’Ble High Court Wherein The Hon’Ble High Court Has Set Aside This Issue To The Tribunal Vide Judgment & Order Dated 06/12/2016 In Income Tax Appeal No.965 Of 2014. For The Sake Of Ready Reference, The Entire Judgment Of The High Court Is Reproduced Hereunder:- 1. This Appeal Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act") Challenges The Order Dated 29Th November 2013. Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("The Tribunal') The Impugned Order Is In Respect Of Assessment Year 2005-06

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 260A

circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in reopening of assessment although there was no new tangible material evidence brought on record by the Respondent A.O? 3 Question No. 1. (a) It is case of the appellant that the reasons in support

Shri Mohammad Abbas Ashraf, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Srinagar

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

ITA 207/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Yashender Garg, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 44A

stands served on assessee. 2. The entire reassessment is bad in law, as the reassessment is based on AIR information, rather on any tangible material. 3. The ld. AO erred in both facts & laws by deeming cash deposits of Rs.10,87,500.00as unexplained investments in an arbitrary manner, when ... perusal of first para of assessment order reveal, that Ld. AO has recorded reasons purely on AIR information rather on any tangible material and issued notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act 1961. The AIR information can arouse suspicion that income has escaped assessment, but the same cannot

M/S Gupta Corporation Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle2(1), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 49/NAG/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 68

basis of intimation received from DIT (Inv.), Kolkata. According to the appellant, the reasons for reopening are vague and not raised on any tangible material. There was no reason provided by the AO for delay in providing the statement of Shri Anand Sharma to the appellant on which

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Bhilai, Durg vs. Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd., Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 241/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.241/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 1(1), V Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd, Bhilai, Durg S Bsp Premises, Slag Yard Road (Opp Sector 4 Nmoh), Bhilai Pan: Aadcb1675Q (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri. R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 30-10-2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

Assessee's- claim. of computer software expenses. Through the reopening process, Assessing Officer desired to re-exam in the same. Without there being. new tangible material available with him, the Tribunal correctly held that the same was impermissible. f) In YashomandirSahakariPatpedhi Ltd. fITANo.112 of 2017, dt 12- 3-2019 (Born

Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 375/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 148

reasons but the conclusions of the AO one after the other. There is no independent application of mind by the AO to the tangible material which forms the basis of the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. The conclusions of the AO are at best a reproduction ... conclusion in the investigation report. Indeed it is a 'borrowed satisfaction'. The reasons fail to demonstrate the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. 37. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is satisfied that in the facts and circumstances

Mehul Prakash Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, W-27(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1(a) and (b) of the appeal are against reopening of assessment, in absence of any argument , are dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi, A Before Shri. Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Sandeep Singh Karhailit Assessment Year: Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Mehul Prakash Mehta Mr. Mehul Prakash Mehta V. Ito, W-27(1)(1) 27(1)(1) 401/402, Mahalaxmi Apartment 401/402, Mahalaxmi Apartment Mumbai 16, Akash, 90 Feet Road Akash, 90 Feet Road Nath Panth Road, Ghatkopar (E) Nath Panth Road, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aghpm8335M Pan No. Shri V. D. Parmar, A.R. Assessee By: Shri Mahita Nair, D.R. Revenue By: 12.10.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement Pronouncement : 27.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri Mahita Nair, D.RFor Respondent: 12.10.2023
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

challenged. For the reopening of the assessment, the Learned CIT-A upheld the action of the Learned Assessing Officer, holding that there is tangible material that there is no assessment already made and therefore, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh

Cricket South Africa (Npc), South Africa vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 604/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 194ESection 195

have granted approval in a thoroughly mechanical manner. Thus, he submitted, the assessment having been reopened under total factual misconception and without any tangible material on record to establish that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act is wholly invalid. Thus ... reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act clearly reveals that the formation of belief has no live link or nexus with any tangible material available on record. Rather the reasons recorded are based on either non-existent or completely irrelevant facts. In fact, while disposing of the objections

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle1(1), Raipur vs. Akshay Lodha, Raipur

ITA 160/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 160/Rpr/2022 Co No.10/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Akshay Lodha B-26, 27 Gate No.11, Pandri, Textile Market Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Acipl3634P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250

appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee assailed the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O. dehors any tangible material for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. Apart from that, it was the claim of the assessee that the A.O had most arbitrarily, without placing ... directed by the CIT(Appeals). 10. Considering the aforesaid facts, the CIT(Appeals) held a firm conviction that the A.O. had no tangible material that would justify the formation of a bonafide belief for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act in the case of the assessee. Also, the CIT(Appeals

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Meserss T.C. Buildcon Private Limited, Raipur

In the result CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 173/RPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F Cross Objection No. 26/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 173/Rpr/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16-08-2023 घोषणाक" तार"ख/Date : 27-10-2023 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

mentioned that the reasons recorded for the escaped income of Rs. 1,92,42,016/- was merely based on presumption and surmises without any tangible material, therefore, in violation of section 45(2) r.w.s. 2 (47)(v). Ultimate addition confirmed was for Rs. 42,34,074/- only, therefore, the addition ... Orient Craft Ltd (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del HC). In this judgment Hon’ble Delhi HC has held that: “In absence of any tangible material available with AO to form requisite relief regarding escapement of income, reopening u/s 147 of assessment made u/s 143(1) is without jurisdiction