← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 805/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 805/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit M/S Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited Panchkula Circle बनाम/ Vs. Nh 73, Village Kot Extension-Ii, Sector 14, Panchkula. Panchkula. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeck-2405-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By The Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2018. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By Deletion Of Twin Quantum Additions Of Rs.40.85 Lacs & Rs.707.75 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao In The Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)-Ld. AR
Section 131oSection 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 68o

reasons was solely derived on suspicion formed merely on the basis of information as available with the department without there being any fresh tangible material. The Ld. AO, while recording the reasons, failed to authenticate the correctness of the information and resulted in recording of wrong reasons ... details of Balance Sheetwere already placed which contained details of purchase of fixed assets and sources thereof. No fresh tangible material was brought on record by Ld. AO while recording reasons. The Ld. AO, though formed belief of escapement of income for Rs.819.57 Lacs whereas the assessee duly disclosed block

Raju Saha, Barasat, Twenty Four Parganas North vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle - 61, Kolkata

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

ITA 2056/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2056/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raju Saha,……………………………….……...……Appellant Swapanapuri, Duttapukur Hatkhola, Barasat, 24-Parganas (N), Kolkata-743248, West Bengal [Pan:Awops1579E] -Vs.- Dcit/Acit,…………………………………….……..Respondent Circle-61, Kolkata, Office Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 192Section 270ASection 80C

that the assessee failed to disclose the material or fact fully and truly necessary for assessment of the relevant assessment year. There was a tangible material on record that the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.63,81,137/- for AY 2018-19 has escaped assessment within

Om Shreem Ananda Foods Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 19(1), Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4780/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

147/144 of the act without jurisdiction.. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that there was no tangible material on record to form a reason to believe that income of the appellant had escaped assessment. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Arjun Oil Traders, Surat vs. ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

ITA 147/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.147/Srt/2024

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Wheatons Design Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT / DCIT, Circle -6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 781/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita rinesh, JCIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

necessary for assessment. Impugned notice is clearly a case of change of opinion. AO’s reason to believe must be based on some new tangible material which was not available at the time of passing the original assessment order. Reopening was not therefore sustainable. CIT Vs. India Cements

Abhay Chordia, Jaipur vs. The ACIT, Jaipur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT a
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

There is a consensus of judicial opinion that a deeming provision enables the revenue to raise an inference against an assesseeon the basis of tangible material and not on mere suspicion, conjectures or perceptions. In support of it the humble appellant craves leave to refer to and rely upon

Lekhraj Jasraj Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4937/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliay &
Section 147Section 68Section 69C

penny stock transactions. The Assessing Officer, instead entries in penny stock transactions. The Assessing Officer, instead of forming an independent belief based on tangible material linking of forming an independent belief based on tangible material linking of forming an independent belief based on tangible material linking the assessee with such

Tika Ram Education Society, Sonipat, Haryana vs. DCIT/ACIT(E)(C-2), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1140/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1140/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Tika Ram Educational The Dcit/ Acit, बनाम Society, C-2, Crz Senior Secondary School, Chandigarh Vs. West Ram Nagar, Sonepat 131001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aabtt1486A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Dhruv Goel, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12-8-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.10.2204 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 144Section 148

violation of specific provisions of s. 144B, principle of judicial discipline, CBDT Circular, amendment to Income Tax Act as well as not providing the tangible material relied while recording the reasons for reopening of assessment by AO 3 1140-c-2024 – Tika Ram Educational Society, Sonepat 7. The appellant craves

Shri Rushabhdev Swetambar Murtipujak Jain Sangh, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 136/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar&Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CITDR
Section 12ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

approval from the competent authority and on the basis of credible information generated through the departmental system. He held that such information constituted tangible material for forming a belief of escapement of income. 9. On the merits of the addition, however, the learned CIT(A) took cognizance of the fact ... approach. 21. As regards the grounds challenging the validity of reassessment (Grounds Nos. 2 to 4), we hold that the reopening was based on tangible material in the form of departmental information showing large deposits under an active PAN. The existence of two PANs with slightly differing names and corresponding

M/S. R S Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1513/KOL/2025[1513]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S R.S. Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Circle 11(3), 3A, National Library Avenue, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Alipore, Kolkata-700027 Chowringhee Square, Vs. West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcr0739H Assessee By : Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Bonnie Deb Barma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Deb Barma, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

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

Monotech Systems Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1021/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. J. Prabhakar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 147Section 234BSection 36Section 37(1)Section 45

year amounting to Rs.4,34,44,057/- in the original assessment order completed u/s.143(3) dated 28.11.2019. Accordingly, in the absence of any fresh tangible material, the AO lacked the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment u/s.147 of the Act, and in doing so would effectively tantamount to a review ... reassessment initiated by the AO is based solely on the information already available in the assessment records, without any reference to new or tangible material which in our considered view constitutes a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible in law. The AO had examined the reply furnished

Prajesh Maneklal Rupareliya, Mumbai vs. 33(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 6608/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing)

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)Section 69A

strategy PrajeshManeklalRupareliya (AY 2018-19) formulated by Board from time to time and was forwarded to the assessing officer by Investigation Wing is a tangible material for reopening the assessment. The case was reopened with prior approval of ld. PCIT dated 29.03.2022. The details of the information available with

Pushkar Vishwas, Bulandshahr vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3), Bulandshahr

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 5661/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singha.Yr. : 2011-12 Pushkar Vishwas, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca Vaibhav Goel, Ward 3(3), Bulandshahr, 75, Navyug Market, Uttar Pradesh 1St Floor, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Aezpv4597E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vaibhav Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

power to reopen the assessment u/s. 147 provided that Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income; mere change of opinion may not per se to be a reason for reopening

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Madan Mohan Gupta, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 882/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar Garg, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT
Section 132(4)Section 250Section 69A

with respect to the scribbling on the said paper wherein the name and date both are different. The ld. AO could not bring any tangible material evidence therefore the deciphering is not found to be sustainable. As per explanation of the appellant, the figures ... made by the AO is based on deciphering of figures and that too without any perfect logic. The ld. AO could not bring any tangible material evidence in support of the 14 Madan Mohan Gupta, Kota. deciphering of figures adopted by him. Therefore the deciphering is not found

Rekha Ajit Chaudhari, Pune vs. Ward 3(3), Pune

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

ITA 2069/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2069/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

with corroborative evidences. The arguments advanced by the appellant in his statement of facts and grounds of appeal I are also not supported by tangible materials. 6.5 The appellant's contentions are not acceptable in the absence of written submission to substantiate its contentions made in the grounds of appeal

Narendra Khimji Savla, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4197/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

above transaction. Considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the findings recorded by the Investigation Wing, it was clear that tangible material in the instant case existed in the form of information received from Investigation Wing. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case ... stated by him that considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the findings recorded by the Investigation Wing, it was clear that tangible material in Page | 6 ITA No. 4197/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2013-14 Narendra Khimji Savla, Mumbai the instant case existed in the form of information received

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Girraj Kishor Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, the grouds of appea raised by the revenue are

ITA 3769/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)Section 68

assessee also challenged addition on merit. Against the validity of notice under section 148, the assessee stated that reasons recorded do not disclose any tangible material on the basis of which notice under section 148 was issued. The reasons recorded are based on general information received from DDIT (Inv.) Unit ... time, executing transaction reported all transactions to the Income Tax Department. Mere receipt of information from DDIT (Inv.) cannot be treated as tangible material. The recorded reasons do not disclose any evidence of assessee’s fulfilment in any non-genuine transaction. There is no specific material to assessee which could

Samir Patodia (HUF), Fadia Building, Ramwadi, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-7(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 5733/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarsamir Patodia (Huf), V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Fadia Building No. 3, Caval बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle – Cross Lane 4 Ramwaldi, 7(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400020, 400 002, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajhs8769K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain,ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 147Section 148

entry in the form of bogus purchase from the entities controlled and managed by one Sri Gopal Bhattar. Thus, the reopening was based on tangible material. Placing reliance on various P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2018-19 Samir Patodia(HUF) court decision and more specifically on Rajesh Jhaveri Share

Sunil Patodia (HUF), Ramwaldi, Kalbadevi Rd. Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-7(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 5732/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain,ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 147Section 148

entry in the form of bogus purchase from the entities controlled and managed by one Sri Gopal Bhattar. Thus, the reopening was based on tangible material. Placing reliance on various court decision and more specifically on Rajesh Jhaveri Share Brokers P.Ltd 291 ITR 500(SC), Raymond Woolen Mills

Addl.CIT, New Delhi vs. Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5384/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं. 5384 & 5385/िद"ी/2017(िन.व. 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Shri Somil AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 40

facts. The reassessment proceedings have been initiated in violation of first proviso to section 147 of the Act. He further submitted that no fresh tangible material was available before the AO to reopen the assessment either. He pointed that in the reasons recorded for reopening, the AO has recorded ... truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for relevant assessment year, the assessment has been reopened. Nor, does the AO refer to any tangible material which has come into his possession after completion of assessment u/s.143(1) of the Act. Moreover, the reassessment has been reopened not for making

tangible material — 2,812 case laws | BharatTax