← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Trishul Developers, Bengaluru

ITA 767/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

this ground alone, without adjudicating upon the other issues raised by the petitioner inasmuch as the limitation aspect, change of opinion, non-existence of tangible material and non-failure on the part of the assessee disclosing full and true material facts need not be examined. Without going into these aspects

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Trishul Developers, Bangalore

ITA 766/BANG/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

this ground alone, without adjudicating upon the other issues raised by the petitioner inasmuch as the limitation aspect, change of opinion, non-existence of tangible material and non-failure on the part of the assessee disclosing full and true material facts need not be examined. Without going into these aspects

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Trishul Developers, Bangalore

ITA 764/BANG/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

this ground alone, without adjudicating upon the other issues raised by the petitioner inasmuch as the limitation aspect, change of opinion, non-existence of tangible material and non-failure on the part of the assessee disclosing full and true material facts need not be examined. Without going into these aspects

Nasa Agro Industries Private Limited, Fazilka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

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

ITA 236/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Y. K. Sud & Sh. P. K. Anand, CAs
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153cSection 250

only on the basis of information received from Dy. Director of IT (Inv.) without independent application of mind and there being no nexus between tangible material and reason to believe except the suggestion of Dy. Director of IT (Inv.), the notice under s. 148 and consequent reassessment cannot be sustained

Anil Radheshyam Sharma, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 888/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.888/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 (Hybrid Hearing) Anil Radheshyam Sharma, Income Tax Officer, Ward – बनाम/ 73, Shyamal Dham Row 2(3)(1), Surat Vs. House, Godadara, Surat – 395 012 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bdhps8135D (""थ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 44A

conclusion. Whether material would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at that stage. This information in the present case constitutes "tangible material" justifying reopening u/s 147 of the Act. Thus, we uphold the action of the AO in reopening the assessment. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

Shreyansh Anilkumar Shah, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5, Navsari

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

ITA 727/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.727/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 (Hybrid Hearing) Shreyansh Anilkumar Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 504, Rushabh Residency, Navsari, Income T Ax Office, Vs. Maneklal Road, Near Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 Telephone Exchange, Navsari- 445 396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiqps 6441 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 26.07.2023 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeal [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 27.10.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Reopening Assessment U/S.147 By Issuing Notice U/S.148 Of The It Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.32,53,637/- U/S 68 Of The Act On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Cash Credits.

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 226(3)Section 250Section 68

These entries were clearly not examined in the original processing of return u/s 143(1) of the Act and therefore, reopening based on such tangible material is justified, even if the AO mistakenly noted that no return was filed. Therefore, first ground of appeal of the assessee challenging the validity

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 9 to 14 is allowed

ITA 2639/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 254(1)Section 45(4)Section 48

facts and in law, the formation of belief of Ld. Assessing Officer [in short Ld. A.O.] was not based on any tangible material as prima facie ascertained from the reasons recorded for issuing impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act and hence, mandatory condition for meeting jurisdictional requirement

Jagdish Malhotra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-16(1), Jhandewalan

ITA 4546/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Shrikant Namdeo, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Page 1 ITA No. 4546/Del/2025 S.A. No.429/Del/2025 Jagdish Malhotra (AY: 2012-13) THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, DELHI

Lexus Softmac, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 703/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

DCIT-Circle 1(1) [2017] 83 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat) has held that the information received from PDIT(Investigation) regarding bogus transaction was sufficient tangible material to form an opinion for reopening of assessment proceedings and that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Court cannot examine the sufficiency reason ... instant case, the AO had tangible material to form belief of escapement. Further, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stroker Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 291 ITR 580 (SC), the expression “reason to believe” would mean cause or justification and cannot

Lexus Softmac, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 702/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

DCIT-Circle 1(1) [2017] 83 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat) has held that the information received from PDIT(Investigation) regarding bogus transaction was sufficient tangible material to form an opinion for reopening of assessment proceedings and that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Court cannot examine the sufficiency reason ... instant case, the AO had tangible material to form belief of escapement. Further, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stroker Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 291 ITR 580 (SC), the expression “reason to believe” would mean cause or justification and cannot

Bhargavi Keswani, Indore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)- II, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed

ITA 727/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

also void-ab-initio. He has further contended that even the addition made by the A.O is purely based on the_presumption without any tangible material to show _that_the assessee has received cash against the sale of residential units in the project Peeble Bay. The A.O has referred ... Shri Dileep Gupta disclosed any undisclosed income earned by the assessee on account of the alleged cash collection. Therefore, in the absence of any tangible material to establish that the assessee has earned undisclosed income for these assessment years the addition made by the A.O on presumption and assumption

Queen Merchandise Private Ltd, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 3687/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Queen Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc-5(2) Office No. 102, 1St Floor Room No. 427 S.Y. No. 1105-1107, Tulsi Vs. Kautilya Bhavan Building, Mahidharpura C-41 To C-43, G Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri Block, Bck, Bandra Surat, Gujarat-395 003. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Aaacq4048F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Annavaran KosuriFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 270A

erred in relying on the reopen of Investigation Wing and statement of third party, without having any tangible material in support of the same. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of books

Acharya Balkrishna, Haridwar vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C

appreciate the fact that the proceedings initiated under section 148A(b)/(d) of the Act were without application of mind, with no fresh tangible material and were issued at the behest of superior authority, further, there were many factual and legal inaccuracies in the reasons recorded which also shows total

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam vs. Duvvuru Rekha Reddy, Kurmannapalem

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam -530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C] सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 17/Viz/2024 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)] Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam - 530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C]

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

notice was issued by JAO contrary to the stipulations of'E- Assessment of Income escaping assessment scheme'. b) The notice was issued without any tangible material to form the belief that the income of the appellant escapedassessment. 4. Any other grounds of Cross-Objection that may the raised

Raghvender Shankar Finance & Investment Company Private Limted, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-15(1), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8572/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacs1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer & Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/S Raghvender Shankar Income Tax Officer, Finance & Investment Ward-15(1), Company Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110052 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

information received by the AO from another wing prior to the reopening of case u/s 148 of the Act; vi) any specific and particular tangible material to form valid belief to implicate the assessee's transaction as accommodation entry; and vii) live nexus between the search on Shri Aseem Gupta ... with him so as to believe that he controlled various companies to provide accommodation entries to the assessee and others. Thus, there is no tangible material available with the A.O. on the date of recording of the reasons for reopening of the assessment and whatever reasons were recorded are found

Shankar Radhey Finance & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 23(1), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1067/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacs1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer & Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/S Raghvender Shankar Income Tax Officer, Finance & Investment Ward-15(1), Company Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110052 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

information received by the AO from another wing prior to the reopening of case u/s 148 of the Act; vi) any specific and particular tangible material to form valid belief to implicate the assessee's transaction as accommodation entry; and vii) live nexus between the search on Shri Aseem Gupta ... with him so as to believe that he controlled various companies to provide accommodation entries to the assessee and others. Thus, there is no tangible material available with the A.O. on the date of recording of the reasons for reopening of the assessment and whatever reasons were recorded are found

Singhal Fastners Co. P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1066/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacs1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer & Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/S Raghvender Shankar Income Tax Officer, Finance & Investment Ward-15(1), Company Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110052 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

information received by the AO from another wing prior to the reopening of case u/s 148 of the Act; vi) any specific and particular tangible material to form valid belief to implicate the assessee's transaction as accommodation entry; and vii) live nexus between the search on Shri Aseem Gupta ... with him so as to believe that he controlled various companies to provide accommodation entries to the assessee and others. Thus, there is no tangible material available with the A.O. on the date of recording of the reasons for reopening of the assessment and whatever reasons were recorded are found

Subhash Shah, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Faridabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stand allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 1021/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhsubhash Shah, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(4), Prop. M/S Fancy Cloth House, Faridabad, Haryana Mfc 5842, Sanjay Colony, Sector-23, Faridabad Haryana (Pan: Aynps4924N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Akul Agarwal, Fca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad Relating To Assessment Years 2010-11. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Regards To The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S. 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act As The Same Is Without Forming Reasonable Belief While

For Appellant: Sh. Akul Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

existence to believe that income has escaped assessment, their sufficiency cannot be examined at that stage. Clearly in this case the AO was having tangible material to draw such inference. Reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAYMOND WOLLEN MILLS

Vashisht Alloys, Nahan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Yamuna Nagar

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1003/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) a/w Ms. DeepaliFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

rather than ‘reasons to believe’. 3.2 However, Ld. CIT(A) rejected the same on the round that Ld. AO reopened the case on specific tangible material placed before him by investigation wing. The information highlighted that M/s Rima Trading Co. was a concern with minimal commercial identity and financial credentials

Narendrakumar Shankarbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(10), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 830/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

reopening of the assessment under Section 147 based on the information received from ADIT (Investigation), Unit 2(3), Ahmedabad and without any independent tangible material in the case of the assessee company or any other evidences which would result into escapement of income and that the conditions of reopening