← 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

Satyanarayan Somani (HUF), Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

ITA 389/HYD/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar Jhawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.A.R
Section 10(38)Section 144Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross-Objections

ITA 3192/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3188 To 3192/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 To 26/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. : : : : Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Actpv 0618 E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, Cit Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate 28.04.2025 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As `Ld.Cit(A) `) All Dated 17.10.2024 For The

Section 132Section 153ASection 15ASection 271D

same and contended that mere notings found in loose papers from third party premises cannot be used against him, in absence of any tangible material to corroborate the same. The AO however is found to have rejected the submissions put forth by the assessee by observing as under

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

ITA 3191/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3188 To 3192/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 To 26/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 28.04.2025 : 30.06.2025 Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Actpv 0618 E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As `Ld.Cit(A) `) All Dated 17.10.2024 For The

Section 132Section 153ASection 15ASection 271D

same and contended that mere notings found in loose papers from third party premises cannot be used against him, in absence of any tangible material to corroborate the same. The AO however is found to have rejected the submissions put forth by the assessee by observing as under

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3190/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

party prem found in loose papers from third party premises cannot be used against ises cannot be used against him, in absence of any tangible material to corroborate the same. The AO him, in absence of any tangible material to corroborate the same. The AO him, in absence ... tangible material to corroborate the same. The AO however is found to have rejected the submissions put forth by the however is found to have rejected the submissions put forth by the however is found to have rejected the submissions put forth by the assessee by observing as assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3189/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

party prem found in loose papers from third party premises cannot be used against ises cannot be used against him, in absence of any tangible material to corroborate the same. The AO him, in absence of any tangible material to corroborate the same. The AO him, in absence ... tangible material to corroborate the same. The AO however is found to have rejected the submissions put forth by the however is found to have rejected the submissions put forth by the however is found to have rejected the submissions put forth by the assessee by observing as assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3188/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

party prem found in loose papers from third party premises cannot be used against ises cannot be used against him, in absence of any tangible material to corroborate the same. The AO him, in absence of any tangible material to corroborate the same. The AO him, in absence ... tangible material to corroborate the same. The AO however is found to have rejected the submissions put forth by the however is found to have rejected the submissions put forth by the however is found to have rejected the submissions put forth by the assessee by observing as assessee

R C Advisors Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Geetha Rani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14A

same material which was available before the ld. AO during original assessment. It is true that there is no reference of any tangible material. In the absence of any tangible material, reopening of the assessment already concluded could not have been done. Such is the mandate of the decision ... Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 wherein it is held that the AO has power to reopen, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Such reasons must have also live link with the formation of the belief

Edwards Lifesciences (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6188/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailedwards Lifesciences (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor Commerz – Ii, International Business Park Oberoi Garden City, Goregaon (East), Off Western Express Highway Goregaon (East), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400063 Pan : Aaacb4203F V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Mumbai - 400012 Assessee By : Ms. Chandni Shah Ms. Riddhi Maru Ms. Kinjal Patel Revenue By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni ShahFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92B

mere incurring an AMP expenditure should not lead to inference of the existence of an international transaction and the Revenue has to prove with tangible material, the existence of arrangement, understanding or action in concert between the Associated Enterprises for the same. 10. The TPO, vide order dated 23.10.2023 passed

Hifzur Rehman Ansari, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 163/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeehifzur Rehman Ansari Vs Ito Ward-20(1)(5), Mumbai 1103, Zam Zam Tower Piramal Chambers, Dr Ss Rao Marg, Belvedere Road, Mazgaon, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 010 Pan: Aaapa7928F Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Assesseing Officer erred in issuing impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act when admittedly there is no fresh tangible material for formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 5 ITA 163/Mum/2024 Hifzur Ansari 7. On the facts and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred ... addition on account of reasons recorded in the order was not added while completing the assessment. Admittedly, there is no fresh tangible material on record for formation of belief. Considering this, the Ld.AR prayed for acceptance of additional grounds, now sought to be raised before us. 5. The Ld.DR argued

Ram Ratan Hooda, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 45 (1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 982/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69

despite the fact that they suffer from jurisdictional defects, violate the principles of natural justice, and were issued without providing tangible material or specific information to the Appellant, thereby rendering them legally untenable. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate 3 the fact that the order passed ... wrongly upheld the reassessment order under Sections 147/144/144B of the Act passed by the Ld. AO, as there is the absence of any fresh tangible material which has come to the knowledge of the Ld. AO. The reassessment proceedings were thus initiated based on a mere change of opinion, which

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Filatex India Limited, Delhi

ITA 5000/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

assessment order passed by the AO not sustainable. Thus the additions made by the AO on the basis of such statement without any tangible material is not sustainable in law and liable to be deleted. 39. In view of the above discussion and further looking to the fact that when ... genuneness of transaction and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. On a broader reckoning, the apprehension raised by the Revenue authorities militates against the tangible material and is thus extraneous. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the additions made u/s 68 towards

ACIT, Delhi vs. Grand Estate LLP, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4740/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

assessment order passed by the AO not sustainable. Thus the additions made by the AO on the basis of such statement without any tangible material is not sustainable in law and liable to be deleted. 39.In view of the above discussion and further looking to the fact that when ... genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. On a broader reckoning, the apprehension raised by the Revenue authorities militates against the tangible material and is thus extraneous. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the additions made u/s 68 towards

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Filatax Inida Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4635/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

assessment order passed by the AO not sustainable. Thus the additions made by the AO on the basis of such statement without any tangible material is not sustainable in law and liable to be deleted. 39. In view of the above discussion and further looking to the fact that when ... genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. On a broader reckoning, the apprehension raised by the Revenue authorities militates against the tangible material and is thus extraneous. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the additions made u/s 68 towards

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Madhav Bhageria, New Delhi

ITA 2059/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

ITA No.2059/Del/2024 & C.O.No.109/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

DCIT Central Circle 4, New Delhi vs. Grand Estate LLP, New Delhi

ITA 1389/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

ITA Nos.4729, 4737, 4740, 1389/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.29, 30, 31/Del/2025 & 92/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW

Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6), New Delhi vs. Munish Bajaj and Sons HUF, Delhi

ITA 2782/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 73(1)

apply his mind during original assessment proceedings to points on which assessment is sought to be reopened, it can be said that there is tangible material and reason to believe that income has escaped assessment- held yes (Para 10) At the stage when the assessing officer reopens an assessment ... reopened within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year the test to be applied is whether there is tangible material to do so. What is tangible is something which is not illusory, hypothetical or a matter of conjecture. Something which is tangible need

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem vs. Pandyan Grama Bank, Salem

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2870/CHNY/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2870/Chny/2024 & Co No.06/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 2870/Chny/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Pandyan Grama Bank, Income Tax, Vs. Now Known As Tamil Nadu Grama Circle 1, Bank, Salem. No.6, Yercaud Road, Hasthampatty, Salem – 636 007. [Pan: Aahat-7854-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate & Shri. P. Gurusamy, I.T.P. Department By : Shri. Shivanand K Kalakeri, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. Shivanand K Kalakeri, C.I.T
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 80P

filed by the assessee is neither fresh nor tangible and therefore, the re- assessment proceedings initiated in the absence of any new fresh and tangible material does not survive. :-7-: I.T.A. No.:2870/Chny/2024 & C.O. No.06/Chny/2025 15. The ld.AR submitted that the above stand of the assessee is fortified ... that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to make a true disclosure nor the Assessing Officer had relied on any tangible material which has come to his knowledge after the filing of the return and intimation under section 143(1), justifying the reopening. Therefore to reopen

Amandeep Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1546/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahmanamandeep Singh, Vs. Dcit, Circle 10 (1), 10/46, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 026. (Pan :Alops5758C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Shri Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date Of Order : 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 22.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 14.10.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,97,140/-. Subsequently, Proceedings Were Initiated Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 68

granted without application of mind in the instant case. 3. That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there was no relevant tangible material on the record of tile A.O. that could have enabled him to validly record any reason to believe that any income has escaped assessment ... taxmann.com 471 (Del.) wherein Hon’ble High Court has held as under :- “17.5 It is evident that the AO had, perhaps, no tangible material available with him to form a belief that income, otherwise chargeable to tax, had escaped assessment. The phraseology used by the AO reveals that he 'suspected

ITO, Ward 43(6), Delhi vs. Ankur Jain, Delhi

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3305/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Ito, Ward 43(6), Vs. Ankur Jain, New Delhi Bh-4, Delhi East, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (Pan: Adkpj1885H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sankalp Malik, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 11SSection 68Section 69A

have been made, more on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises than on the basis of any independent third-party enquiry or tangible material on record. The law is trite that suspicion howsoever strong cannot partake the character of an evidence. Here it would be pertinent to refer

Mohan Dass Chellani, Dubai vs. ITO WD 1(1), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 352/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT -DR a
Section 271(1)(c)

along with corroborative evidences. The arguments advanced by the appellant in his statement of facts and grounds of appeal are also not supported by tangible materials. Accordingly, the appeal is being decided keeping in view the facts brought on record by the AO in the penalty order