← 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

Kisan International Trading Fze, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 6152/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Kisan International Trading Fze, Vs. Acit, Circle C/O Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Int. Tax 2(1)(2), C – 179, Mansarover Garden, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015. (Pan :Aaeck0424D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 19.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 43 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 06.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On Facts & In Law The Order Dated 06Th December 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)'} & Order Dated 23Rd December 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Are Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio.

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115A(5)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 251

case of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd (supra) have placed jurisdictional safeguards to ensure the extraordinary power of reopening is exercised when the AO has tangible materials in his possession and recorded proper satisfaction which is clear, specific before initiation of proceedings and even before the issue of notice. Further, as held ... Lakhmani Mewal Das (supra), the AO must hold a Bonafide reason to believe that it is based on a live causal nexus between the tangible material in possession and alleged escapement of income. In the present case, the AO is aware of the fact that the assessee is non-resident

Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja, Khakhadabela, Paddhari vs. ITO WD 2(1)(4), RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed, to the extent indicated above

ITA 459/RJT/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.459/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja Vs. Ito Ward 2 (1) (4), Khakhadabela, Paddhari, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot - 360110 Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agvpj2529E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 26/07/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 25/11/2009 U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. That The Reasons Recorded U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Ld. A.O. Were Merely Based On The Suspicion & Without Any Tangible Material So As To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. Hence The Reassessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Quashed Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

That the reasons recorded u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Ld. A.O. were merely based on the suspicion and without any tangible material so as to suggest any escapement of income. Hence the reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja

Prem Singh, Chamba vs. ITO Ward Palampur, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 945/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 943/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 944/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 945/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle Palampur बनाम/ The Palace, Chamba Palampur (Hp) - 176061 Vs. Chamba (Hp) -176310 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

years stand collapsed and accordingly, the reasons for reopening would not survive for both these years also. The Ld. AO is left with no tangible material to justify reopening of the case of the assessee and accordingly, the assessment for AYs 2013-14 & 2014- 15 stands quashed. We order

Prem Singh, Chamba vs. ITO Ward Palampur, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 944/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 943/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 944/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 945/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle Palampur बनाम/ The Palace, Chamba Palampur (Hp) - 176061 Vs. Chamba (Hp) -176310 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

years stand collapsed and accordingly, the reasons for reopening would not survive for both these years also. The Ld. AO is left with no tangible material to justify reopening of the case of the assessee and accordingly, the assessment for AYs 2013-14 & 2014- 15 stands quashed. We order

Prem Singh, Chamba vs. DCIT Circle Palampur, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 943/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 943/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 944/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 945/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle Palampur बनाम/ The Palace, Chamba Palampur (Hp) - 176061 Vs. Chamba (Hp) -176310 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

years stand collapsed and accordingly, the reasons for reopening would not survive for both these years also. The Ld. AO is left with no tangible material to justify reopening of the case of the assessee and accordingly, the assessment for AYs 2013-14 & 2014- 15 stands quashed. We order

Abuchi Infra Ventures Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Delhi

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

ITA 2712/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaabuchi Infra Ventures Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (3), Kh No.115, Village Alipur, Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Aacb5801K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Harshit Srivastav, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 01.08.2023For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 On 07.11.2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.1,27,520/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass & Accordingly, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’)

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Srivastav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

complied till the passing of the impugned order. Further he submitted that ld. CIT (A) has sustained the addition without appreciating any tangible material on record. In this regard he relied on the decision of Pr.CIT vs. Simpex Granito Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 164 taxman.com 351 (Guj.). 7. Ld. AR submitted