“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

Natwar Lal Gala, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 398/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Natwar Lal Daga, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 397/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Natwar Lal Daga, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 396/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

ACIT, Cir-1(3), Surat vs. Pravin Pannalal Shah, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Pravin Pannalal Shah Lal Bunglow, Athwalines, Income-Tax, Circle-1(3, Vs. Surat-395007 Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Hajira Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrps 1045 H (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

evidence sufficient to raise an inference. A deeming provision, thus, enables the revenue to raise an inference against an assessee on the basis of tangible material and not on mere suspicion, conjectures or perceptions. It would also be necessary to reiterate that it is not perceptions but concrete facts that

Shri Darshan K Vakharia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1540/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1540/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 1539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri. Nagnath B. Pasale

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 250

held by the Hon'ble Courts in the judgments cited hereinabove it is abundantly clear that the information received from the Investigation Wing is tangible material for assuming jurisdiction under the provisions of section 147 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the appellant has received money from

Shri Darshan K Vakharia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1539/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri. Nagnath B. Pasale

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 250

Executive Trading Co. Pvt Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 281/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69C

Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The Learned Departmental Representative made following submissions: (i) The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of tangible material being information share in the 96th meeting of Regional Economic Intelligence Council, Mumbai. The information receive that the Appellant got issued LCs from various banks ... reassessment proceedings. The 8 information shared in the 96th meeting of Regional Economic Intelligence Council, Mumbai received by the Assessing Officer constituted fresh tangible material for initiating reassessment proceedings against the Appellant. A perusal of the aforesaid information placed upon record by the Ld. Departmental Representative shows that the Assessing

Omega Finhold Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

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

ITA 1286/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Section 115JSection 147Section 148

ground No. 1.1, the assessee has challenged “reason to believe” on the ground that same are not specific and lacking reliable and tangible material. 5. In support of the ground, the Learned Counsel of the assessee referred to the reasons recorded, which has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer ... shifting of loss of ₹ 4,420/-. According to Learned Counsel, this belief of the Assessing Officer is without any tangible material to support that such client code modification has been done for evasion of the tax. Further, he submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer is not justified in making

Smita Bhadauri, Bhopal vs. ACIT Central -2 Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 67/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismita Bhaduaria Acit-Central-2 E-8/11, Basant Kunj, Arera Bhopal Vs. Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aewpb 4635 C Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25 .07.2023

made in the bank account. Therefore, the rejection of the opening cash balance as source of deposit is based on presumption and without any tangible material or fact to show that the said opening cash balance was utilized for some other purpose hence the same is not justified. Accordingly, when

DCIT-CC 5(2), Mumbai vs. Jetair Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3050/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

after considering all the petitioner's submissions. He submitted that the statement of the employee of the petitioner cannot be said to be any tangible material to justify the reopening in as much as it does not contain any information which could be regarded as new material to justify reopening

Narendra Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 44(2), New Delhi

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1218/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: & Sh. Anchit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar Bansal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

erred in not appreciating that the proceedings initiated u/s. 147/ 148 are invalid and illegal as the reasons recorded do not reflect any tangible material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer could have reasons to believe that any income has escaped assessment. 3. That

Mrs Sunita Shyam Malpani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 344/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunita Shyam Malpani, Vs. Ito 25(1)(3), 701,Plot No.117, Room No.703, Karanapartment, Kautilyabhavan, Lokhandwalacomplex, Bandra Bkc, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No.Acppm8552J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10Section 143Section 144ASection 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

capital gains to large number of beneficiaries in lieu of unaccounted cash. These observations of the AO in the assessment order cannot constitute any tangible material or evidence to show that the transaction of the assessee is bogus being an accommodation entry. The AO in the show cause notice though ... made simply on the basis of statement alone. The same has to be substantiated and corroborated either by enquiries or by linking it with tangible material/ evidence. It is a settled law that statement, that too of 3rd person, alone cannot be treated as incriminating material for the purposes

Shri Amarjeet Singh, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (1), Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 60/ASR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Aman Raj Bawa &For Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 68

monthly household expenses of the family. Under the circumstances, the explanation offered by the assessee is held hold to unsustainable, in the absence of tangible material corroborative evidence. The assessee has even failed to substantiate the purported gift of Rs.4,50,000/- claimed to be received in cash from

Shri Murlimanohar Ramkishan Mundhra, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 158/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.158/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Murlimanohar Ramkishan Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), (Old Ward- Mundhra, 301 To 308, Vs 1(2)(3) Surat, Aayakar Third Floor, Shree Krishna Market, Near Metro Tower, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Ring Road, Surat-395002 Surat-395001 Pan No: Aflpm 6057 P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sudhir Surana, Ca & Shri Om Prakash Soni, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal Instituted On 03.03.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.05.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 18.07.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Ld. Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 13.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.11.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal:- Murllimanohar R Mundhra “1. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts Confirming The Reassessment Proceeding Initiated By The Ld. Ao, Without Properly Appreciating The Submission Of The Appellant.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 57

assessing officer during original assessment initiated and completed under section 143(3). The assessing officer has not recorded that any new or tangible material came to his notice or that escapement of such income was result of not disclosing all the material fully and truly at the time of assessment

M/S Blue City Township & Colonizers, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

ITA 90/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 69

apply his mind to the reasons furnished by the AO. 45. Reasons to believe are there. The reasons are based on tangible material. The return and account books of assessee had not undergone scrutiny at the time of assessment. The information is specific and not vague. A reasonable person ... suspicion. Hence, the assumption of jurisdiction is in accordance with law. 16. In the present case, the AO has reasons to believe based on tangible material. The return and books of account of the assessee had not undergone scrutiny at the time of assessment and the information is specific with

Praveen Shaileena, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(5), Raipur

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

ITA 72/RPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 72/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Parveen Shaileena Behind Ankur Hospital, Hanuman Mandir, Jail Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Batps7678N

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

reasons are wrongly recorded for Rs.20,03,000 being cash deposits into bank, merely on presumption & surmises, on unverified information, without having any tangible material on fallacious assumption that the bank deposits constitute undisclosed income when sources of cash deposits need not necessarily be income of the assessee; while cash

Crown Seals Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-6(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1319/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Crown Seals Pvt. Ltd., V. Ito – Ward – 6(2)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road G-6-A, Laxmi Wollen Mill Estate Mumbai - 400020 Shakti Lane, Dr. E. Moses Road Mahalxmi, Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaccc8602K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 148Section 250Section 69C

period of four year merely on information received from DGIT(INV) Mumbai and sales tax department without considering the fact that there was no tangible material on basis of which a assessment can be reopened, further the AO failed to apply his independent mind to such material before reopening

DCIT, CC- 28, New Delhi vs. Saarthak Vanijya India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 3822/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaआ.अ.संसंसंसं/.I.T.A No.3822/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

Section 148Section 68

wholly on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. (iii) That addition made on the basis of information from investigation wing per se does not constitute tangible material and in absence of any adverse material on record, the re- I.T.A.No.3822/Del/2017 & CO No. 70/Del/2020 assessment proceedings u/s 148 is illegal ... sustainable for want of tangible material. (iv) That in absence of proper approval in terms of provisions of section 151 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 is illegal and without jurisdiction. (v) That even otherwise, the addition of Rs. 3,56,79,600/- made by the Assessing officer

Shri Harbans Singh Mann, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (4), Mansa

In the result, the ground no

ITA 129/ASR/2022[2010-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2010-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.129/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250oSection 69A

apply his mind to the reasons furnished by the AO. 45. Reasons to believe are there. The reasons are based on tangible material. The return and account books of assessee had not undergone scrutiny at the time of assessment. The information is specific and not vague. A reasonable person ... find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer is not solely based on the statements recorded by the Investigation Wing but there was tangible material in the shape of the bank accounts statements, agreement to sell and sale deeds which are of course not in dispute. The only dispute

K R Packaging (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 71/DEL/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

investigation report." 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. 14. To compound