“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

Akshay Kumar Rungta, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), International Taxation

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

opened or not. Information which comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer during proceedings for subsequent assessment years can definitely form tangible material to invoke powers vested with the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act.” 8. Respectfully following the above judgement, we allow this issue raised

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Karnani Solvex Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)

supported by the audited balance sheet, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Hence, there is no escape from the conclusion that no tangible material was available with the Assessing Authority so as to initiate the re-assessment proceedings against the petitioner by taking recourse to the provisions under section

Nitin Avantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 20(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1667/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui- Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

completion of the regular assessment under section 143(3) itself. Accordingly the ld AR argued the reopening is not based on any new tangible material but based on a material which was already available on record before the completion of original assessment itself. The ld. AR submitted that a precondition ... initiation of reassessment proceeding is that the assessee should have a reason to believe based on tangible material that the income has escaped assessment. The ld. AR argued that in assessee's case the AO has initiated the reassessment proceeding based on the material which was already available

Chittpavan Athavale Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 776/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrachittpavan Athavale Foundation Cit (Exemption), Pune Flat No.102, Nandanvan Building, Vs. Karvenagar, Pune – 411052 Pan: Aajcc3597Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Department By : Shri Ravi Prakash Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

available on ITBA portal that the assessee has not uploaded these details despite giving ample opportunities as detailed above. In absence of any such tangible material in respect of details and proof of activities being carried out, it is not possible to ascertain as to whether the activities

Smita Manoj Patane, Kolhapur vs. ITO 2(1) Kolhapur, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 711/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.437/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manoj Diwakar Patane, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), 339/21/22/23, Vasant Kolhapur. Sahawas, Wing F-3, Shahupuri, Karveer- 416003. Pan : Aippp3853K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.711/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Samita Manoj Patane, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Shop No.1 653/A, Kusum Kolhapur. Apartment, 2Nd Lane, Shahupuri- 416001. Pan : Amypp8375M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Appeals Filed By Two Difference Assessees Are Directed Against The Different Order Dated 16.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac (In The Case Of Manoj Diwakar Patane) & Order Dated 21.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-11 (In The Case Of Smita Manoj Patane) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.437/Pun/2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 (In The Case Of Manoj Diwakar Patane) As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 133A

assessing officer or the appellate authority. Despite posting the case several times, there was no sufficient response. I observe that the assessing officer had tangible material in his possession to form belief regarding income which had escaped assessment and there is complete lack of information/documentary evidence regarding these cash deposits

Manoj Diwakar Patane, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Kolhapur, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 437/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 133A

Dhanshree Softech Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5742/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 Dhanshree Softech Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward 7(1), 59, Top Floor, Vijay Block, Delhi Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092 (Pan: Aaccd9596M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukul Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 144B

that in this case AO has passed the exparte order u/s 144B of the Act by not providing any information or tangible material, till the end of the reassessment proceedings. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition without considering the fact that AO has passed

M/S. Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2306/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 147Section 148

because reopening is made on the basis of same material which was available at the time of original assessment. Therefore, in absence of any tangible material, reopening is bad in law for the reason that the impugned assessment Page 4 of 6 year is AY 2014-15. He further submitted

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2984/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

arrat ates aferacn,'e ars, Fa! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI Mud A. apf, afte wees

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2983/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए 'न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2981/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

arrat ates aferacn,'e ars, Fa! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI Mud A. apf, afte wees

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2980/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

arrat ates aferacn,'e ars, Fa! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI Mud A. apf, afte wees

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2979/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

arrat ates aferacn,'e ars, Fa! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI Mud A. apf, afte wees

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2978/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

arrat ates aferacn,'e ars, Fa! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI Mud A. apf, afte wees

Radiance Realty Developers India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2972/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

arrat ates aferacn,'e ars, Fa! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI Mud A. apf, afte wees

Radiance Realty Developers India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2971/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

arrat ates aferacn,'e ars, Fa! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI Mud A. apf, afte wees

Shri Navinchandra N. Patel, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 869/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dzouza, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(2)Section 69

check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st 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

Mahendra Kumar, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bengaluru

In the result, the revisionary order passed u/s

ITA 812/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

assessment was based on an incorrect information. 12. He further referred to the reasons and submitted that there is no reference to any tangible material for reopening of the assessment. He submits that the reopening has been made as on Insight Portal information is received in the category of high

ACIT Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Johnson Dye Works Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1118/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Prabhash Shankar, Am Acit Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Ground Floor, New Era House, Churchgate – 400020. Vs. Mogul Lane, Matunga (W), Mumbai – 400016. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj2082J (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia/Samir Shah Respondent By : Shri. Ajay Singh (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2012-13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal Along With Additional Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting Transactions Of Rs. 2,12,42,250/-In Nsel Exchange As Client Code Modification Transaction For Shifting Of Profit/ Loss Added To The Income Of The Assessee Relying On The Decision In The Case Of Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Dcit 390 Itr 464 (Bom.) Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case? Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh Dadia/Samir ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Singh (Sr. DR)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

Court in the case of Rakesh Gupta vs. CIT [2018] 405 ITR 213 has held that if the reasons of reopening are based on tangible material and when the information is specific and not vague, the information received can be based for the reason to believe that the income

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Faridkot, Bsnl Building vs. M/S Vohra Solvex Pvt. Ltd, Sadiq Road

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69C

highlighted in the various judgments of higher courts quoted above, the AO has power to reopen a case, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income of the assessee. The contentions of the appellant that all maternal facts were disclosed before ... submitted that when the reassessment proceedings are commenced by issue of notice u/s 148, beyond four years the same should be based on some tangible materials available with the AO, but in the instant case, the 19 I.T.A. No. 588/Asr/2024 & Ors Vohra Solvex Pvt Ltd. v. ITO & Ors said reopening