“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

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

initiated after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without surfacing of any fresh tangible material and merely on the basis of the assessment made in the case of Shri M.K. Ajatshatru Singh. He submitted that assessment made in the case of Shri

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

ITO 28 (3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vasant Purshottam Thakkar, Mumbai

Accordingly the cross objection of assessee is allowed

ITA 2515/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 147Section 148Section 151

void ab initio. 3. The reopening of the assessment by notice u/s 148 dated 31/3/2016 is without considering the fact that there was no tangible material or basis on which assessment can be reopened, therefore the reopening is bad in law 04 Briefly stated, facts show that assessee

Raghav Softech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

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

Zanul Abiden Vahora, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 15 (1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1365/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar ()And Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Zanul Abiden Vahora, Ito, Wd-25(1)(5), Flat No. 7, Plot No. 156, Chandrakiran Vs. Room No. 611, C-12, Pratyaksh Society, Behind Tolani College, Shere Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Punjab Society, Andheri (East), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Ahtpv 0978 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s 148 issued in absence of fresh tangible material, without independent application of mind on borrowed satisfaction and without having valid reason to believe of escapement of income; 3. On facts and circumstances

Ferani Hotels Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4 (1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 7610/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80I

allowed after thoroughly examining conditions for applicability of sections 80-IA (4) and 80-1B(10) of the Act and without having any tangible material indicating escapement of income. 3(b). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred

Advanced Enzyme Technologies Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7213/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Advanced Enzyme The Asst. Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Room No.22, 6Th Floor, B – Wing, Sun Magnetica, „A‟ Wing, Ashar It Partk, Ambika Vs. 5Th Floor, Lic Service Road, Nagar, Road No.16Z, Wagle Louiswadi, Thane(W) Estate, Thane (W), Mumbai-400 604 Mumbai- 400 604 Pan No. Aacfe7262L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, MsFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, DR

Section 10Section 143Section 147Section 148

proceedings stating that same has been made on perusal of the details filed during original assessment proceedings and therefore there is absence of any „tangible material‟. Thus he contested that the reopening of the assessment has been made without pointing out any failure on the part of the assessee ... disclose all material facts truly and fully and in absence of any tangible material but on reappraisal of the same material which was there before the learned assessing officer during the course of original assessment proceedings. 08 He further referred to the objections filed by the assessee before the learned

Inderjeet Kohli, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-38(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6963/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi

Section 147Section 148Section 22

proceeded on the basis of the report of ADIT (Inv) without making any independent inquiry. He submitted that the AO was not having any tangible material on the basis of which he could have concluded that at the relevant point of time, the properties were owned by the assessee ... formed any belief of any escapement of income but it was a case of fishing/roving inquiry. He submitted that the AO must have some tangible material at his command to form a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment which requirement in the present case was not satisfied

Mr. Tulsi C Bhimjyani, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 429/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सुं./ Ita No. 429/Mum/2020 (यनधाियण िषि / Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Tulsi C. Bhimjyani The Dy. Commissioner Of 301, A Wing, Fortune 2000, Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Bandra East, Vs. Mumbai-400 051 (अऩीऱाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./Pan No. Aabpb4740P अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से / Respondent By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr सुनिाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R प्रशाुंत महर्षि, ऱेखा सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Prashant Maharishi, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

under section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2009-10 has already been concluded. The reason clearly shows that there is no tangible material found into the possession of the Assessing Officer for reopening of assessment. Reading the reasons recorded, he submitted that the Assessing Officer has reopened ... submitted that Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order after verification of the details and he reopened the same in absence of any tangible material available with him but on perusal of the same material which he verified during the original assessment proceedings. He further contended that it is change

Krishna Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 38(3), New Delhi

ITA 6356/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

filed return of income where as factually return was filed on 02/02/2015 which itself vitiates the belief formed; ii) That in reasons no tangible material is narrated or described so as to form valid belief u/s 148 of the Act; iii) That mere DIT information is mentioned in reasons recorded ... amount of credit received, the payer, the payee, their respective banks, and the cheque number. This information by itself cannot be said to be tangible material. 20. Coming to the second part, this tells us what the AO did with the information so received. He says; "The information so received

Harish Chander Taluja, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 63(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4110/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Harish Chander Taluja, Vs Acit, 1300, Pan Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Circle-63(1), New Delhi-110006 New Delhi. Pan-Aaept8815C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sanjeev Chadha, Ca Respondent By Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2021

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

parties were submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. It was stated even the Assessing Officer made the disallowance in the absence of any tangible material on record. He submitted the Assessing Officer without mentioning any instance of absence of the date of missing voucher made an ad-hoc disallowance

Morgan Ventures Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8238/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiyaita No. 8238/Del/2019 [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151

appreciation of material already on record which is impermissible. (iv) That the objection raised by audit party per se does not constitute tangible material and there being no other adverse material on record, the reopening u/s 147 is illegal and not sustainable for want of tangible material. (v) That

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. N G Balu Reddy HUF, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 651/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chetan R, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

year in respect of same Income. Hence notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. Further there was no new tangible material, and assessment was done only by change of opinion and suspicious that there is escapement of income. Further it is submitted that reopening ... Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Hanil Era Textiles Ltd in ITA 203 of 2017 held that without there being new tangible material available reopening is bad in law. Further in the case of CIT vs. Sahara India Mutual benefit company Calcutta High Court held that initiation

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. South Delhi Promoters Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 6402/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

quashed as such. —do— That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 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 ... income. When there is no failure on the part of the assessee to furnish fid I and true particulars and there is no tangible material on the basis of which the assessing officer can allege escapement of income, the only consequence would be that the assessing officer was exercising

Metalsa India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

ordinate bench ruling in case of Corning Technologies India Pvt Ltd (supra), we find such email correspondences, invoices, and agreements etc. as a tangible material that the appellant has received services from AE. 30. The ld. AR has based on the audited financials of the appellant, along with various factual

Vijayshree Food Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 587/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Vijayshree Food Products P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O Ravi Gupta, Advocate, Central Circle-30, E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv4721C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th December, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Export Of Tobacco Products. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014 Declaring The Loss Of Rs.18,78,467/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 26Th November, 2014 At The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment As Per The Provisions Of Section 147 Of The Act By Recording The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

submitted that the AO while recording reasons has made very wrong observations and hence it can be inferred that there was no tangible material with the AO for having reasons vis-a-vis escapement of income. He submitted that the 9 information on the basis of which reasons were conceived

Ekkta Buildwell P.Ltd, Nerw Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5809/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O. P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Amitosh Moitra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr.(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That there has been no application of mind or investigation on the basis of tangible material which has live nexus to the income by the Learned Assessing Officer in recording his reasons to believe escapement of income and he has mainly replied

ITO, Ward-8(1), New Delhi vs. Ekkta Buildwell P.Ltd, Nerw Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5704/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O. P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Amitosh Moitra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr.(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Seema Singhal, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward- 3(5), Hapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2441/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Seema Singhal, Hapur Vs. Ito C/O. Pradeep & Co., Ward – 3(5) 7, Navyug Market, Hapur Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 001 Pan : Awpps 0757 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

section 147 of the Act. (ii) That the reasons recorded are solely on the basis of AIR information which cannot be considered as tangible material, the reasons recorded u/s 147 are based on borrowed satisfaction and are illegal and not sustainable under the law. (iii) That assessing officer having failed