← 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

Arpit Sehgal, Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 68(5), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 8009/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8009/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Arpit Sehgal, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 174, First Floor, Sector- Ward-68(5), 8, Rohini, Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Dmeps2068P Assessee By: Sh. Hardik Mehta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1081173922(1) Dated 25.09.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Hardik Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 29ASection 80G

settled principle that once the assessee has participated in the reassessment proceedings and filed return in response, procedural objections cannot invalidate the reassessment when tangible material exists. The challenge on this ground is rejected. 6.2 The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.3,00,000/- u/s 80GGC for donation to Sardar Vallabhai

Darshan Lal Makhija, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 60(7), New Delhi, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4006/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 147Section 148A

Sachin Kumar Achin Kumar”. We accordingly are of the considered view that the impugned reopening is not sustainable in law as no tangible material pertaining to the assessee has been considered to this effect by both the learned lower authorities. The 2 | P a g e impugned reopening seeking

Hiteshbhai Rameshbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO Ward, 2, Bardoli

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

ITA 484/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hiteshbhai Rameshbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, 466 Kanbivad, Goddha Mahuwa, Ward-2, Bardoli, Income Tax Taluka Valod, Dist. Surat 394630 Vs. Office, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Gujarat, Building, Opp. Jalaram Temple, Station Road, Bardoli- 394601 Pan No. Avdpp 6788 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Mr. J.K. Chandani, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Mr. J.K. Chandani, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

submitted that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were founded on mere suspicion, were vague and far-fetched, and disclosed no tangible material to indicate tax evasion by the assessee. According to the learned counsel, the reopening was the result of a mechanical exercise undertaken without due application ... occasion to examine or verify the source of such cash deposits. The formation of belief by the Assessing Officer was thus based on tangible material, namely, information of substantial cash Hiteshbhai Rameshbhai Patel 6 deposits and non-filing of return of income. These facts constituted relevant material for the purpose

Arcoy Industries (India) Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 427/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and without any new tangible material on record of Assessing Officer. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of THE appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering ... reason to believe” that some income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. That such “reason to believe” must be based on some tangible material and must prima- facie establish that there is escapement of any income chargeable to tax. The Ld. Counsel has further referred to the copy

Arcoy Industries (India) Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby

ITA 426/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and without any new tangible material on record of Assessing Officer. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of THE appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering ... reason to believe" that some income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. That such “reason to believe” must be based on some tangible material and must prima- facie establish that there is escapement of any income chargeable to tax. The Ld. Counsel has further referred to the copy

Arcoy Industries (India) Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 425/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and without any new tangible material on record of Assessing Officer. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of THE appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering ... reason to believe” that some income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. That such “reason to believe” must be based on some tangible material and must prima- facie establish that there is escapement of any income chargeable to tax. The Ld. Counsel has further referred to the copy

Arcoy Industries (India) Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 424/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and without any new tangible material on record of Assessing Officer. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of THE appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering ... reason to believe” that some income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. That such “reason to believe” must be based on some tangible material and must prima- facie establish that there is escapement of any income chargeable to tax. The Ld. Counsel has further referred to the copy

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Siddheshwari Vyapaar Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2280/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2280/Kol/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2012-2013) Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Vs Siddheshwarivyapaar Pvt Ltd Kolkata 2Nd Floor, 159, Ravindra Sarani Kolkata-700007 Pan No. :Aancs 2337 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Cit-Dr निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shrisoumitra Choudhury & Rainak Jain, Advocates सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenueagainst The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Dated 06.05.2025For The Assessment Year2012-2013. 2. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 69 Days. Considering The Submissions Of The Ld. Cit-Dr & Looking To The Facts Of The Case, We Condone The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,82,00,000/- Made U/S.68 Of The Act On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credits Received From Shell Entities In The Guise Of Share Capital.

For Appellant: ShriSoumitra Choudhury and Rainak Jain, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

making inquiries or verifying transactions without any prima facie evidence of income escapement. In this case, the reasons recorded do not reflect any tangible material or evidence that could justify the reopening of the assessment. Useful reference may be made to the judgment in the case of PCIT Vs. Meenakshi ... Overseas Pvt. Ltd., the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not independently apply their mind to the tangible material that served as the basis for forming the "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment. The court observed that the AO's conclusions were

Mahak Doshi Legal Heir of Late Aditya Doshi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

upholding the assessment wherein the AO made reopening the assessment on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing without any tangible material or applying his own mind that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. 3. After hearing the rival contention and perusing the material available on record ... reasons but the conclusions of the AO one after the other and there was 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 Hon'ble High Court has held that the conclusions

Aalekha Supply Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1286/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

reasons but the conclusions of the AO one after the other and there was 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 Hon'ble High Court has held that the conclusions

DCIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5394/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 250Section 30Section 32Section 40Section 44

reopening the assessment would have to be regarded as a mere change of opinion which has also not been based on any tangible material. Consequently, we hold that the reopening of the assessment is contrary to law. The Petition would have, therefore, to be allowed. 13. Rule is, therefore, made

Shantilal Narottamdas Panchal, Malad East vs. ITO-41(3)(4), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3570/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56(2)(vii)

NFAC/CIT(A) has erred in reopening the assessment merely on the basis of information received without considering the fact that there was no tangible material on the basis of which the assessment could be reopened, further, the AO failed to apply his independent mind to such material before reopening

Pinkal Dilip Bhansali, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1701/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sapnesh D Sheth (Virtually
Section 148Section 69C

escaped basis of the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 6.2 The formation of belief is thus founded on tangible material The formation of belief is thus founded on tangible material The formation of belief is thus founded on tangible material and bears a direct nexus with

DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2445/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

change of opinion'; (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without independent application of mind, is illegal and bad in law: (d) Sanction under section 151 of the Act for initiation of reassessment ... jurisdiction Re: (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without independent application of mind, is illegal and bad in law It is further respectfully submitted that in order to initiate proceedings under section

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

change of opinion'; (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without independent application of mind, is illegal and bad in law: (d) Sanction under section 151 of the Act for initiation of reassessment ... jurisdiction Re: (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without independent application of mind, is illegal and bad in law It is further respectfully submitted that in order to initiate proceedings under section

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

change of opinion'; (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without independent application of mind, is illegal and bad in law: (d) Sanction under section 151 of the Act for initiation of reassessment ... jurisdiction Re: (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without independent application of mind, is illegal and bad in law It is further respectfully submitted that in order to initiate proceedings under section

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2442/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

change of opinion'; (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without independent application of mind, is illegal and bad in law: (d) Sanction under section 151 of the Act for initiation of reassessment ... jurisdiction Re: (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without independent application of mind, is illegal and bad in law It is further respectfully submitted that in order to initiate proceedings under section

DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals P.Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 200/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

change of opinion'; (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without independent application of mind, is illegal and bad in law: (d) Sanction under section 151 of the Act for initiation of reassessment ... jurisdiction Re: (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without independent application of mind, is illegal and bad in law It is further respectfully submitted that in order to initiate proceedings under section

Yogendra Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Etah

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

ITA 408/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

having regard to the facts and circumstances to the case the reopening under section 147 is illegal and without jurisdiction as there was no tangible material to form a valid 'reason to believe that income had escaped assessment; the Assessing Officer failed to make any independent enquiry or application

Ankitjain, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 913/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 292CSection 69

circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Unit/NaFAC erred by making the additions without supplying the relevant documents or tangible material to the appellant and without obtaining the bank account statement(s) relied on which the case was reopened by the JAO, as such, said proceedings