“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

Basant Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2750/DEL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbasant Jain, Vs. Dcit, C-119, Shivaji Park, Central Circle-29, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Adbpj2416P

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act also becomes flawed. Hence, it could be safely concluded that the ld AO did not have not tangible material at the time of recording the reasons which had live link to form a belief that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment

Rameshwar Lal Vyas, Beawar, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1257/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Vinod Gupta CA, Ld. AR

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69

reiterated that the addition has been made merely on the basis of statement and one seized page without bringing any corroborative tangible material. The assessee further stated that no cash payment has been made to any party and submitted confirmation and affidavit of such parties. With respect to statement ... unaccounted cash payment made to creditors by the assessee. The onus was on the revenue to prove the content, however we find that no tangible material, other than the statement, has been brought to support that the entries appearing in the seized page are unaccounted cash payment made to creditors

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Race Course vs. Unimed Technologies Limited, Halol

ITA 632/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

remains unchanged, a different view should not ordinarily be taken. The learned Departmental Representative, despite raising general objections, could not bring on record any tangible material or fact to controvert the above position. No evidence has been placed before us to show that the expenditure led to acquisition

Unimed Technologies Limited, Panchmahal vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 623/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Unimed Technologies Limited Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Survey No.22 & 22, Vs. Vadodara. Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Unimed Technologies Limited Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.22 & 22, Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Aum Chaitanya P Pu Shree Rameshwaray Dham, Pune vs. C.I.T (Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2504/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

have not furnish any supporting credible evidences in respect of the activities. Kindly furnish the same. In absence of any such tangible material in respect of proof of activities being carried out it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion about the genuineness of activities and also to ascertain

Aum Chaitanya P Pu Shree Rameshwary Dham, Pune vs. C.I.T (Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2503/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Satbichar Distributors Private Limited, Kanpur vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 448/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250

ease by not supplying the reasons to believe recorded for escapement of income of the year under consideration and also there exist no tangible material having live nexus with the reasons so recorded. 3.1) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the impugned ... ease of the appellant without application of mind, in the absence I.T.A. No.: 448/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Satbichar Distributors Private Limited. of any tangible material and in the absence of live nexus of any tangible material with the reasons so recorded. 4.2) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Alka Rajesh Vanigota, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-52, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69Section 69A

credit, from the material facts on record were quite evident that it was from the sale of shares. As there was no tangible material brought on record to convert these transactions then it is very difficult to treat the sale proceeds of the shares as unexplained cash credit

Avitel Post Studioz Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5242/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)

originally assessed. 3 Avital Post Studioz Limited 5. Upon seeking reasons recorded for reopening, the assessee filed detailed objections, contending that no fresh tangible material existed and all facts were previously disclosed. However, the objections were disposed of vide a speaking order dated 27/05/2019, and reassessment proceedings were initiated

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 815/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

been found to be vitiated or incorrect based on material found subsequently, the AOshall have powers to review such findings based on any tangible material coming to his notice, while exercising power of assessment of total income u/s 153A. Further the appellant has not made any specific submissions on this

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 809/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Bangalore Venkatappa Ravikumar, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 800/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Mallya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

bank A/c in Janatha Seva Co-op. Bank and deposited cash of Rs.76,20,000. Thus reopening was held to be based on tangible material on record and not borrowed satisfaction. The ld. CIT(A) further supported his decision based on various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Bangalore Venkatappa Ravikumar, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 799/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Mallya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Nazar Impex Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(3), Surat (Current Jurisdiction), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1212/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1212/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Nazar Impex Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat, Aaykar Vs. Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395 003 Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccn3603R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025 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 26.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 30.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeals Are As Under: “1. Ground 6. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Rejection Of Books Of Account Under Section 145(3) Of Income Tax, Act 1961 Without Pointing Out Any Defect In Books Of Account & Even The Return Income On The Basis Of Books Of Account Were Also Not Disputed.

Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 250

case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming issuance of notice under section 148, even though there is no new tangible material for reopening. 5. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming validity of proceedings under ... order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) where the appellant challenged validity of reopening in absence of any new tangible material and without proper sanction from the appropriate authority. The appellant also ITA No.1212/SRT/2024 A.Y 12-13 Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. contended that no addition

Vinita Bajoria, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

this stage.” The above observation of the Apex Court itself establishes that reopening of any assessment should be based on some additional fresh and tangible material. This aspect of the law also have been established in number of judicial pronouncements of various courts some of which already been mentioned ... observed as follows and decided in favour of the assessee:- “6.1 Neither there existed foundational facts, nor it could be said that any tangible material was available with the assessing officer to justify exercise of power. It could be said that the basis for reopening was absent. When the foundation

DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana, Kitchlu Nagar vs. Sh. Aman Batra, Civil Lines

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1041/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 28Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

more than 0.50%. 14. We do find force in the argument of the assessee that the estimation should be based upon some tangible material or with reference to certain information or figures. The application of enhanced rate of 5% or 18% by the revenue is not permissible in the eyes

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Pune vs. Subhash Jivraj Jain, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1690/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153C

opinion, that the information by way of a seized hose papers in the case of third party cannot be said to be tangible material without a further enquiry falling which the addition made in the hands of the assessee fails and, is not justified. Thus, the order ... held that the information by way of seized loose papers in the case of third party cannot be 8 CO No.29/PUN/2025 said to be tangible material without a further enquiry failing which the addition made in the hands of the assessee fails and is not justified. Thus, the addition

Rameshbhai Prajapati, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblerameshbhai Prajapati, Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Plot No. 242/2, Sector 1 C, Income-Tax, Gandhinagar-382001 Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar [Pan :Ackpp 9936 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 210Section 234ASection 250Section 270A(1)

investment required to be deleted. 02. That the Ld. assessing officer has re-opened the case of the appellant after 4 years without any tangible material on record and hence the re-opening itself is bad in law illegal and required to be quashed. 03. The appellant has furnished

Umang Webtech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 14(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Umang Webtech Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, 196/C, C.R. Avenue, Ward 14(1), Aaykar Bhavan Kolkata-700007 110 Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacu9656P Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

ground no.4, which is against the order of ld. CIT (A) upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act without any tangible material without any link to escapement of income and hence, the reopening is bad in law and the assessment may be quashed