“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

Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal HUF, Gandhidham vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

ITA 780/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

incorrect, and does not have any leg to stand. 17. Therefore, we note that there is no whisper in the reasons recorded, of any tangible material which came to the possession of the assessing officer. It reflects an arbitrary exercise of the power conferred under section

Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal HUF, Gandhidham vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

ITA 779/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Popular Motorworld Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(5), Kochi

ITA 538/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neetu S, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

escaped assessment and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in initiating the re-assessment proceedings. The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of tangible material. 5. On perusal of the record it emerges that assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed on the Assessee vide Assessment ... Assessee, it becomes apparent that the Assessing Officer had initiated re-assessment proceedings on verification of the assessment records and there was no fresh tangible material was available with the Assessing Officer to form a belief that income liable to tax had escaped assessment. In this regard, we note that

Shushma Verma, Ghaziabad vs. Assessing Officer Ward 2(2)(3) Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1334/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushma Verma Vs. Assessing Officer, 419, Competent House F-14 Ward 2(2)(3) Inner Middle Circle Ghaziabad Connaught Place New Delhi Ghaziabad 110001 Pan No. Aclpv002If (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 54F

income amounting to Rs. 1,38,19,000/- without appreciating the facts of the case and without any independent enquiry and without any tangible material and therefore the entire assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and on fact

Sunshine Technobuild Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Accordingly ground no. 1 raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 592/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153ASection 153C

borrowed satisfaction from the investigation wing and merely repeating the facts recorded by the investigation wing without establishing any direct link between the tangible material and the formation of reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. 5. Without disposing the objections raised by the assessee

M/S Gvk Jaipur Expressway Private Limited, Telangana vs. PCIT 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and that too, based on tangible materials on record, is impermissible rendering the resultant order void. 314 ITR 81 (SC) CIT Vs. Green World Corporation The Income-tax Officer, while passing

Shri Khurshid Ahmad Bazaz, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 526/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 526/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

erred in both facts & laws by confirming the assessment order, when the reopening is purely based on AIR information rather on any tangible material. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in both facts & laws, by conforming addition of Rs 33,76,500.00 as unexplained investment in an arbitrary manner, when

Jigar Industries, Jamwadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajkot

In the result, question is decided against the Revenue

ITA 405/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

upon the show cause notice and materials supplied by the excise department without finding any defect in books of accounts and without any new tangible material. (3). The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.52,09,784/- towards alleged undisclosed gross profit @ 24.02% on suppressed sales solely ... assessing officer, only on the basis of notice issued by the excise department. The assessing officer did not have any material or tangible material in his possession, except notice of excise department, to reopen the assessment of the assessee. The ld. Counsel stated that there was no tangible material

M/S Ashoka Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed as per the

ITA 690/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

share capital and earning fictitious profits and so called belief formed by AO towards escapement of chargeable income was without availability of relevant or tangible material and merely ITA.No.690/JPR/2025 (M/s. Ashoka Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd.) following opinion expressed by investigation wing, reassessment was bade in law and hence liable

Viramgam Mahesana Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 119/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarviramgam Mahesana Project Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 17(1), E – 9, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Ndse Part 2, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan :Aabcv7027L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Order : 14.08.2025 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. Thisappeal Is Filed By The Assesseeagainst The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)]Dated 22.10.2014For Assessment Year 2006-07 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1 That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceedings, U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act & Also Failed To Appreciate That Neither The Mandatory Requirements Of Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act Nor The Pre-Conditions For Invoking The Provisions

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

built test to check the abuse of power and hence the Revenue has the power to reopen an assessment, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income from 8 assessment. It is a fact that the Revenue initiated the reassessment proceedings based

Ugc Text and Build Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1927/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 12.08.2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

learned C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the act of the AO in issuing the notice u/s. 148 in absence of fresh tangible material, without independent application of judicial mind and without having reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, thereby reassessment order is bad in law. 2. On facts

Ugc Text and Build Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1926/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 12.08.2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

Ugc Text and Build Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1922/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 12.08.2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

Prem Devi Baid, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(5), Jaipur, Ncrb, Statue Circle, C-Scheme

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Dheeraj Borad, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 14ASection 250Section 57Section 68

render the transactions bogus. The assessee successfully discharged primary onus by furnishing robust third-party documentary evidence, none of which was controverted by any tangible material brought on record by the AO. Further, there is no evidence or indication brought forth by the AO suggesting cash was routed back

Rajeshbhai Bhagwandas Patel, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (3) (2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and the assessment order is quashed

ITA 985/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

while mechanically confirming the additions made by the AO. 6.2 We note that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 must be based on tangible material indicating that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the relevant assessment year. The transaction forming the basis of escapement must be pertinent

Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 3511/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 32A

permissible as per law. ii. The genesis of reopening was the same material available with the AO on assessment records and no new tangible material or fact brought on record. iii. The reopening was beyond a period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year without any failure ... quashed since they have been initiated on a mere change of opinion. B. Reopening of proceedings without any new tangible material/ fact is invalid and bad in law, 22. The Appellant humbly submits that on perusal of towards paragraph no 2 of the recorded reasons reproduced above (enclosed at page

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Haresh Shantichand Jhaveri, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Haresh Shantichand Income Tax, Ward – 4(1)(1), बनाम Jhaveri, Room No. 642, Aaykar Bhavan, Ps 6-7 Rotunda Bldg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Samachar Marg, Mumbai – Mumbai–400 020, Maharashtra 400 023, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpj8053B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Shantilal Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 147

ignore the loss. The assessee was denied a fair opportunity the rebut allegations effectively. The AO’s approach mere borrowed satisfaction without independent tangible material demonstrative escapement of the income by the appellant. The department has neither produced any document nor any witness statement that directly implicate the assessee

DCIT-Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Navkar Corporation Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, we affirm the order of the Ld

ITA 1846/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(4)(i)Section 801A(5)Section 801A(8)Section 80I

assessee has complied in letter and spirit. Once such audited segmental accounts are produced, the onus shifts to the Revenue to demonstrate, with tangible material, why those accounts are unreliable. No instance of inflation of income, suppression of expenditure, or any inconsistency in ledgers has been identified

M/S. India Exposition Mart Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1079/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhshri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra, Accountnat Member Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Khanna, C. A./NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.S. Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

allowable; that when the AO has allowed the claim debited by the assessee in the profit & loss account, in the absence of fresh tangible material, reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on the basis of audit objection; and that assumption of jurisdiction by the AO on the basis of objection raised ... check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after Ist April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief

Sh. Kapil Taneja, Jaipur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further inquiry was undertaken by Assessing Officer, said information could not be said to be tangible material per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis was not justified. In case of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com ... basis of information from DIT(Investigation) that assessee had received accommodation entry and there was no independent application of mind by Assessing Officer to tangible material and reasons failed to demonstrate link between tangible material and formation of reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, reassessment was not justified