“ tangible material ”

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

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.

291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court

1,030

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

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.

256 ITR 1 · 2002 · High Court

439

354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court

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.

366

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.

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.

384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court

274

PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.

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.

396 ITR 5 · 2017 · High Court

272

264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court

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

253

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT

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.

308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court

248

ITA 8309/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

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

Shark Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries, but no further inquiry was undertaken by assessing officer, said information could not be said to be tangible material per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis was not justified. [Principal CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl ... provision is the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer that income has escaped assessment. The reasons recorded have to be based on some tangible material and that should be evident from a reading of the reasons. It cannot be supplied subsequently either during the proceedings when objections

Nalini Parwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 249/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 249/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Nalini Parwani C/O. G.K Automobiles P. Ltd. Opp. Kabir Nagar, Gate No.2. Ring Road-2, Sondongri, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aeqpp5635N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Chawda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 57

lower authorities erred in law and in fact by not disposing the objection raised by appellant regarding non availability of any tangible material with the Ld AO to reopen the case which was already verified by Ld AO in its original assessment proceedings concluded ... built test to check abuse of power by the AO. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, AO has power to reopen, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief

Vipul M Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO -17(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhvipul M Shah (Huf) Vs. The Ito 17(3)(5) 404, Commerce House, Mumbai 140, N.M. Road, Fort, Maharashtra – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabhv3153Q Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Vimal Punamiya Respondent By : Gotimukul Santosh Kumar Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2023

For Appellant: Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Gotimukul Santosh Kumar

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. The whole basis of making the addition is third party statement without there being any tangible material. It is trite law that additions merely on the basis of suspicious, conjectures or surmises could not be sustained in the eyes ... vital link between the assessee and Shri Vipul Bhat. We do not find any independent investigations by Ld. AO to bring on record any tangible material to corroborate the same. There are no evident or even allegation of any cash exchange between the assessee and group entities of Shri Vipul

Parminder Singh, Jind vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bhiwani

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1411/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1411/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Parminder Singh Ito H.No.2748, Urban Estate, Vs. Ward-2, Jind, Haryana. Bhiwani. Pan No.Bckps3874B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

observed from the reasons the Assessing Officer at the time of recording of reasons of reopening he was not in possession of any tangible materials with him suggesting that the income had escaped assessment except the AIR Information. The Assessing Officer did not make any proper enquiry to form ... 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

A and R Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 307/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargm/S. A & R Buildmart Vs. Ito Pvt. Ltd., 11/8, Mandir Ward-1(1) Wali Gali, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi New Delhi-110 016 Pan No. Aahca 2794 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2023

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

concealed income simply on the basis of information received from DIT (Investigation Wing). The Ld. AO has not applied his independent mind on the tangible material which forms the basis of reason to believe. The conclusion of the AO are at best a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1), Raipur vs. M/S Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 73/RPR/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.73/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. H. No.11, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aahcs7999A ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri, Sakshi Gopal Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(2)(b)

check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link will:411e formation. of the belief

Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Patel, Adipur vs. DCIT, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Vs. The Dcit, Patel Gandhidham Circle, Venus Plaster Industries, Plot Gandhidham (Kutch) No.89, Ward-2B, Adipur (Kutch) Pan : Aaopp 4484 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” For Short] Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 5,04,500/- Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:- “The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts As Also In Law In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.5,04,500/- Levied U/S 271Aab Of The Act On The Ad-Hoc Disclosure Of Rs.50,45,000/-. The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271Aab Of The Act Is Totally Unjustified On Facts As Also In Law, May Kindly Be Deleted.” 3. The Primary Argument Of The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Against The Levy Of Penalty Was That The Income Surrendered By The Assessee During

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271A

argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the undisclosed income as defined in Section 271AAB of the Act refers to tangible material found during search, and mere admission of the assessee dehors any material found during search would not qualify as undisclosed income for the purposes ... search cases on undisclosed income found, was levied. The Hon’ble ITAT, he pointed out, held that in the absence of any reference to tangible material, mere act of acquiesce of ad-hoc income under Section 132(4) of the Act cannot be covered within the sweep of "undisclosed income

Rpg Nirman P.Ltd, Meerut vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Meerut

In the result all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3026/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

ITA 3025/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

accommodation entries. 12. ………. 13. As in the above case, even in the present case, the Court is unable to discern the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. In the present case too, the information received from the Investigation ... Wing cannot be said to be tangible material per se without a further inquiry being undertaken by the AO. In the present case the AO deprived himself of that opportunity by proceeding on the erroneous premise that Assessee had not filed a return when in fact it had.” 18. Considering

Rpg Nirman (P) Ltd., Meerut vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Meerut

In the result all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

ITA 3024/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Rpg Nirman (P) Ltd., Meerut vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Meerut

In the result all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

ITA 3023/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Rpg Nirman (P) Ltd., Meerut vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Meerut

In the result all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

ITA 3246/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

ACIT(OSD), Ward-22(1), New Delhi vs. S.S. Gas Lab Asia P. Ltd., Delhi

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit(Osd), Vs. S. S. Gas Lab Asia P. Ltd, Ward-22(1), A-6/3, Jhilmil Industrial Area, New Delhi Shahdara, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakcs1928C Co No. 54/Del/2023 (In Ita No. 3246/Del/2019) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit(Osd), Vs. S. S. Gas Lab Asia P. Ltd, Ward-22(1), A-6/3, Jhilmil Industrial Area, New Delhi Shahdara, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakcs1928C Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Kumar Bindal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/10/2023 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, A. M.: 1. The Appeal In Ita No. 3246/Del/2019 Filed By The Revenue & Co No. 54/Del/2023 387/Del/2021 Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2008-09, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Cit(A)‟, In Short] In Appeal No. 10208/16-17 Dated 08.02.2019 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 09.03.2016 By The Assessing Officer, Ito, Ward-22(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disagreement; c) the notice u/s 148 was issued merely on change of opinion on the same set of facts without any fresh tangible material to show any escapement of income; and d) the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the case was reopened after more

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2881/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

ITA 2880/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

deserve to be quashed as such. 2.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that there was no specific relevant, reliable and tangible material on record to form a “reason to believe” that income of the appellant had escaped assessment and in view thereof the proceedings initiated ... assesse further pointed out that the First Appellate Authority has failed to 2 appreciate that there was no specific, relevant, reliable and tangible material on record to form a reason to believe that the income of the appellant for the relevant assessment year had escaped assessment and in view thereof

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

ITA 2879/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

ITA 2878/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

ITA 2877/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

ITA 2876/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

ITA 2875/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Ruby Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR