← 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

ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar vs. Leela Greenship Recycling Private Limited, Bhavnagar

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above directions

ITA 2135/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Commissioner V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Of Income Tax, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Circle-1, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, SR-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69C

from the GST anti-evasion wing regarding the assessee’s transactions with Mahadev Trading Co., allegedly a non-genuine entity issuing accommodation invoices, constituted tangible material sufficient to enable the Assessing Officer to form a prima facie belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The CIT(A) emphasized ... confronted to the assessee prior to initiation of reassessment. In fact, as per the facts and circumstances, there was no independent inquiry or tangible material on record to justify "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment. The AR strongly submitted that reopening based on borrowed satisfaction is impermissible

Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for

ITA 2111/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, B Wing, Leela Efcee, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar-364002. बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhavnagar. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 2135/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhavnagar. Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., बनाम / Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar-364002. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aagcg8956L अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) Assessee By : Revenue By : प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, Ar Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26/06/2025

For Appellant: Revenue by
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69C

from the GST anti-evasion wing regarding the assessee's transactions with Mahadev Trading Co., allegedly a non-genuine entity issuing accommodation invoices, constituted tangible material sufficient to enable the Assessing Officer to form a prima facie belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The CIT(A) emphasized ... confronted to the assessee prior to initiation of reassessment. In fact, as per the facts and circumstances, there was no independent inquiry or tangible material on record to justify "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment. The AR strongly submitted that reopening based on borrowed satisfaction is impermissible

Bharat Shivaji Chavan, Sonarsiddhnagar vs. ITO Ward 5, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 876/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.876/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bharat Shivaji Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, At Sonarsiddhnagar, Post S Ward-5, Sangli. Kowthali, Tal Atpadi, District Solapur, Kotali – 413101. Maharashtra. Pan: Auwpc0996M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 30.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed U/S.144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 25.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

Arts Society vs DCIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 776 (Bombay)[25-01- 2024] has held as under : Quote, “5. Therefore, there has to be a tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income from assessment to exercise the power to reopen. But if the reasons

Das Offshore Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3890/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Das Offshore Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sagar Uday, Plot No. F-3, Tax, Circle 1(2), Agroli, Sector 29, Mumbai Behind Cidco Bhawan, Vs. Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai - 400614 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaacd5996K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ramesh Jain, Cas Revenue : Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055302006(1), Dated 22.08.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.11.2017 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ramesh Jain, CAsFor Respondent: Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

already been dealt with in the course of regular assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act, tantamounting to change of opinion with no new tangible material brought on record. According to him, the reassessment proceedings and impugned reassessment order are bad in law, liable to be quashed ab initio ... purpose of issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act, there is nothing 8 Das Offshore Ltd. AY 2012-13 discernible to refer any new tangible material brought on record by the Ld. AO for invoking the said proceedings. He refers to the material already on record which has been duly examined

Mangilal Datla, Banswara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Banswara, Banswara

ITA 304/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL

Heera Lal Kasara, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/JODH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

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

assessment under section 143(3) of the IT Act. The ld. AR submitted that the guidelines of newspaper society cannot be treated as tangible material having any financial and ultimately on the assessee and hence on the basis of this a completed assessment cannot be reopened under section

DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Kkalpana Industries India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 452/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate and Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45

test to check the abuse of power. Hence after April 1, 1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen an assessment, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income from assessment. Reason must have a link with the formation of the belief

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A & D Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result we upheld the decision of the Ld

ITA 1729/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Manan Merchandise (P) Ltd.. Thus upto para 2 of reasons recorded the Ld. AO fails to record any specific facts based on tangible material except the facts of credits in the books of assessee company, which is otherwise recorded in the books of accounts itself. In Para ... regard to aforesaid facts, we are of the view that upon consideration of reasons recorded, the same is found to be vague, having no tangible material, based on borrowed satisfaction, these could be at the best reasons to suspect not reasons to believe, which is not permissible. Thus, we find

Smt..Anuradha, Pathankot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1), Pathankot

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 437/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250

recorded by the A.O. are also incorrect on factual figures as noted above and the reasons failed to demonstrate the link between the alleged tangible material and the formation of reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Moreover, we also fail to understand

Mahendra Kumar Verma, Indore vs. ITO-4(1), Indore

ITA 482/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 482/Ind/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Mahendra Kumar Verma Ito-4(1) Flat No.301, Classic Indore Vs. Dream, 5-6, Paliwal Nagar, Indore (M.P.) -452011 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acspv2701P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S. N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mongra, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr 17/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Agrawal & Shri PankajFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69B

validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when reopening was done in absence of any tangible material and live link of concealment of income and merely for verification of source of investment made in the partnership firm 4. That on the facts

Rama Shanker Pareek, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69CSection 80C

basis of which the AO formed his reasons and came to the conclusion that there is escapement of income. In fact, there was no tangible material in possession of the AO leading to the belief that income has escaped assessment. The AO has failed to establish any live nexus between

Dinessh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward4(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shivangi Chopra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

belief by the Assessing Officer that income has escaped assessment is the heart of the provision. The reasons recorded must be based on some tangible material and the same should be evident from the reading of the reasons and this constitutes the mandatory requirement of section 147. In this regard ... assessee, Hon'ble High Court held as under- 25. In the instant case, there is no 'close nexus' or 'live link' between tangible material and the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The information received from the Investigating Unit of the revenue cannot be the sole basis

Mohinder Kumar, Sonipat Haryana vs. ITO Ward 3, Sonipat Haryana

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1224/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1224/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Mohinder Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 1063/23, Tirth Market, Ward-3, Sonipat, Haryana-131001 Sonipat, Haryana-131001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abcpk6594N Assessee By: Sh. Ravi Mohan Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Naman Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071770303(1) Dated 01.01.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Mohan Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

clinching factual position, this tribunal are of the considered view that the impugned reopening itself is not sustainable since not based on any tangible material having live nexus with the reopening reasons in light of PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmann.com 300 (Del.). Ordered accordingly. 5. This

Avi Aggarwal, H.No. 171-R, Model Town, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Assessment Unit NFAC, Delhi, Jao ITO Ward6(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab

ITA 971/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

that the reopening has been made on 'wrong reasons' to believe and on incorrect facts. It was further argued that even there was no tangible material and it was merely a change of opinion. There was no nexus of the conclusion sought to be drawn and the information as received ... reported in [2012] 20 taxmann.com 797 (Del-HC). 10.1 Further it was argued that there has to be a live link between the tangible material and formation of reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and reference was made in the 7 following judgements: i). Signature Hotels P.Ltd

Bardc Bank, Bhatkal vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 294/PAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.294/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) Bardc Bank Bhatkal, Vs National E – Pld Bank, Main Road, Assessment Centre . Uttara Kannada, Delhi-110001 Bhatkal S.O. Karnataka-581320. Pan .No. Aaaap1731G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

Whereas the original assessment was completed u/sec 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 19.12.2015. The A.O has recorded the reasons without any tangible material/ fresh material except charges based on judicial decision. The Ld.AR submitted that the information in respect of claim of deduction u/sec80P

Venkata Reddy Aavula, Prakasam District vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 1289/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1289/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Venkata Reddy Aavula Vs. Income Tax Officer Prakasam Distt Ward – 1 Pan:Auppa0619Q Ongole (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A Akshay Surana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Mookambikeyan, S, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2013-014. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: C.A Akshay SuranaFor Respondent: : Shri Mookambikeyan, S, DR

Rs.31,11,500/-. Therefore, in the absence of any return of income or otherwise declaration of this transaction by the assessee, there is a tangible material to form the belief that the income assessable to tax to the extent of investment of Rs.31,11,500/- in purchase of immovable property

ACIT Circle-64(1), New Delhi vs. Ashima Neb, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 4206/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3953 और 4206 /िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Gautam Jain, Parth Singhal & Ankit Kumar, Advocates
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4

case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 has held, “…….. Assessing Officer has power to reopen, 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 ... instant case “tangible material” for the AO to form belief is missing, leave aside a live link between the two. The Act does not postulate conferment of unfettered power to the AO to reopen a completed assessment without their being any new tangible material. Even in the case

ACIT Circle-64(1), New Delhi vs. Ashima Neb, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 3953/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3953 और 4206 /िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Gautam Jain, Parth Singhal & Ankit Kumar, Advocates
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4

case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 has held, “…….. Assessing Officer has power to reopen, 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 ... instant case “tangible material” for the AO to form belief is missing, leave aside a live link between the two. The Act does not postulate conferment of unfettered power to the AO to reopen a completed assessment without their being any new tangible material. Even in the case

Jai Kumar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.184/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jai Kumar C/O. Jyoti Sales Corporation, Handi Para, Azad Chowk, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Atopk6732E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

conclude that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The AO had in his possession. 4 Jai Kumar Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur tangible material, having live nexus to taxable income and thus there is no basis for stating that the reopening is not valid.” 3.1 The assessee vide next

Sharadchandra Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 10(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1068/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1068/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sharadchandra Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-10(1), Pune. At Post–Rajuri, Taluka–Junnar, Dist. Pune – 412411. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaabs1016L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Avachat – Ar Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

including high court and supreme court. 6. The reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee are bad in law since there is no fresh and tangible material before the AO to reopen the case, no satisfaction has been recorded, copy of the reasons recorded was not shared, and due to divergent