“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

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

time of scrutiny assessment. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. AO has merely changed his opinion without any fresh tangible material on record and he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Kelvinator of India ... scrutiny does not give any right to the Ld. AO to reopen the case u/s. 147 of the Act, in the absence of any tangible material justifying the reopening. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. ACIT (supra) held as follows

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Ravindra Bharathi Educational Society, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.160/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2018-19) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ravindra Bharathi Income Tax, Educational Society, Central Circle-1, D.No.23/812, Ravindra 3Rd Floor, Raj Kamal Complex, Bharathi Bhavan, Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Fathekhanpet, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh-524003. Pan: Aaaar 2715 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 21/Viz/2022 (आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.160/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2018-19 ) M/S. Ravindra Bharathi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Educational Society, Income Tax, D.No.23/812, Ravindra Bharathi Central Circle-1, Bhavan, Fathekhanpet, Nellore, 3Rd Floor, Raj Kamal Complex, Andhra Pradesh-524003. Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Pan: Aaaar 2715 E ( Cross Objector) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 23/05/2023 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 12ASection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

absence of any supportive incriminating material having direct nexus / correlation with the statement. For having a reason to believe there must be some tangible material which indicates the income escaped assessment. Merely based on the suspicion or surmises, the Ld. Assessing Officer is not permitted to reopen the assessment

The ITO -1(4), Indore vs. Smt Rakhi Gautam, Indore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 48/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Indore22 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Rakhi Gautam Ito- 1(4), Aayakar Cm-626, 2Nd Floor, Bhawan Sukhliya, Indore, M.P. Vs. Indore, Madhya Pradesh Pin-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0159C Assesseeby Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Acit-Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2023

Section 147

validity of reassessment proceeding initiated under section 147 of the 1 Income tax Act, 1961 even when reopening was done in absence of any tangible material and live link of concealment of income that could lead to a formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped from assessment

Shri Rajesh Ravjibhai Patel, Mumbai vs. Asstt.CIT-Circle.26(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 328/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2007-2008

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

shown that assessee had paid cash of Rs.1,11,89,600/- for purchase of certain flats from Crescendo Associates. Once there is tangible material like this, then prima facie any prudent mind will entertain reasons to believe that this amount of On-money which is shown by the assessee

Arun Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 35(8), New Delhi

In the result the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1204/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: V. Rajkuamr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D. R

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

1 Arun Kumar Aggarwal Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI ANIL

Govindbhai L. Kakadia, Mumbai vs. JCIT-19(2), Mumbai

ITA 310/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2023AY 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

this stage of reopening of the assessment. On perusal of the reasons recorded in writing, we find that the Assessing Officer had fresh tangible material to form a belief that the Appellant held a bank account located outside India with credit of USD 2,187/- for the Assessment Year

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

02/01/2016 by SBI (paper book page no. 51-55)] and later on furnished to the Ld. AO'. Obviously, there was no tangible materials in the possession of Ld. AO on the basis of which he makes a belief as to escapement of income. Reasons recorded by the Ld. AO (Paper ... Meenakshi Overseas (395 ITR 677) (paper book page no. 132-141) has held that reasons recorded without independent application of mind, without tangible material, where link between the tangible material and formation of belief is missing, cannot be sustained. 2.4 In view of the facts and circumstances of the present

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Maharashtra vs. ITO Wasrd-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर

Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 40/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर

Dhanshree Infratech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1243/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdhanshree Infratech Vs. Ito-12(2)(1) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 303, Western Edge 1, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, W.E. Highway, Borivali M.K. Road, (E), Mumbai – 66 Mumbai - 20 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagca7306J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Girish Dave Respondent By : Shailja Rai Date Of Hearing 07.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-20, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y. 2008-09. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shailja Rai

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 68

Officer has erred in reopening assessment with the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act without any independent application of mind to tangible material and reasons recorded failed to demonstrate any link between tangible material and formation of reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. 12. Without

Deepak Garg, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Krnal, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1046/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69

four years have expired from the end of relevant AY the AO must have reasons to believe based on a consideration of tangible material that income pertaining to the relevant assessment year has escaped assessment and there must be a specific allegation in the reasons recorded that the assessee

Globus Power Generation Ltd (Formely Known As Cumulative Investments & Trading Co. Pvt Ltd), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-6(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6438/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshglobus Power Generation Ltd Vs. Acit, (Formerly Known As Cumulative Circle-6(2), Investments & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi A-60, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110028 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg6734E

For Appellant: Sh. Ritesh Bajaj, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 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 Globus Power Generation

Sai Prerna Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 216/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sai Prerana Co-Op Society Ltd., Ito-7(3)(2), 317, Puran Aasha Bldg. Gr. Fl. Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Narashi Natha Street, Katha Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Bazar Musjid Bunder (W), 43 Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400 009. Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ruby Srivastava & Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Ms. Ruby Srivastava &For Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR

Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80P

income from holiday home charges. the same in regard to income from holiday home charges. 11. The A.O. therefore did not have any tangible material with 11. The A.O. therefore did not have any tangible material with 11. The A.O. therefore did not have any tangible material with him based ... Offcer has power to reopen, provided there i Offcer has power to reopen, provided there i Offcer has power to reopen, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of material” to come

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. G Nine Modular Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3214/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

always According to him, the incriminating material did not always According to him, the incriminating material did not always have to be tangible material or document indicating name of the to be tangible material or document indicating name of the to be tangible material or document indicating name

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. G Nine Modular Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3213/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. G Nine Modular Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3212/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR