← 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

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. K. Mart, Prem Darwaja

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1323/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1323/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(3) Ahmedabad K. Mart 38, Teliya Mill Compound O/S. Prem Darwaja Ahmedabad – 380 002 बनाम / V/S. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfk 2520 R अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Dated 27.05.2024 Passed For

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

cross- examination. 4 ITA No.1323/Ahd/2024 The Income Tax Officer vs. K.Mart Asst. Year: 2017-18 examination. The CIT(A) concluded that there was no tangible material before the AO to establish that any transaction of cash loan had taken place between the assessee and Shri Pravin S. Shah. The assessment

ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Aligarh vs. Mohd. Intzar, Aligarh

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 318/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.318/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit Circle 4(1)(1) Mohd. Intzar बनाम/ Aligarh 202001 140, Sarai Mitan Vs. Delhi Gate, Aligarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpi-7161-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Deepak Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Singh (Advocate) – Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

made by the assessee were duly accounted for in the return of income which was duly verified during scrutiny assessment proceedings. There was no tangible material to reopen the case of the assessee and accordingly, the reassessment proceedings were quashed and legal grounds as raised by the assessee were allowed ... conclusion of escapement of income. The case was reopened at the behest of third party opinion which is impermissible. There was no new tangible material before Ld. AO to arrive at conclusion of escapement of income which would vitiate entire proceedings in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat, Adajan vs. Diam International, Mahidharpura

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 626/SRT/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Mar 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.610 & 626/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Kansara Sheri, Mahindrapura, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 Surat-395 003 बनाम/ Vs. M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Kansara Sheri, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan- Mahindrapura, Surat-395 Hazira Road, Surat-395 009 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaofm 4432 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.611 & 614/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Kansara Sheri, Mahindrapura, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 Surat-395 003 Diam International बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Vs. Surat, Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Kansara Sheri, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan- Mahindrapura, Surat-395 Hazira Road, Surat-395 009 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaofm 4432 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

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

that there was no force in the plea of assessee that reopening was bad in law. He held that AO had specific credible and tangible material before him on the basis of which, he ITA Nos.610, 626, 611& 614/SRT/2023/AYs.08-09 & 09-10 Diam International formed a reasonable belief that income chargeable

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat, Adajan vs. Diam International, Mahidharpura

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 614/SRT/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Mar 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.610 & 626/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Kansara Sheri, Mahindrapura, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 Surat-395 003 बनाम/ Vs. M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Kansara Sheri, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan- Mahindrapura, Surat-395 Hazira Road, Surat-395 009 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaofm 4432 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.611 & 614/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Kansara Sheri, Mahindrapura, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 Surat-395 003 Diam International बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Vs. Surat, Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Kansara Sheri, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan- Mahindrapura, Surat-395 Hazira Road, Surat-395 009 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaofm 4432 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

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

that there was no force in the plea of assessee that reopening was bad in law. He held that AO had specific credible and tangible material before him on the basis of which, he ITA Nos.610, 626, 611& 614/SRT/2023/AYs.08-09 & 09-10 Diam International formed a reasonable belief that income chargeable

M/S Diam International, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(3)(7), Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 611/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.610 & 626/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Kansara Sheri, Mahindrapura, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 Surat-395 003 बनाम/ Vs. M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Kansara Sheri, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan- Mahindrapura, Surat-395 Hazira Road, Surat-395 009 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaofm 4432 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.611 & 614/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Kansara Sheri, Mahindrapura, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 Surat-395 003 Diam International बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Vs. Surat, Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Kansara Sheri, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan- Mahindrapura, Surat-395 Hazira Road, Surat-395 009 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaofm 4432 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

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

that there was no force in the plea of assessee that reopening was bad in law. He held that AO had specific credible and tangible material before him on the basis of which, he ITA Nos.610, 626, 611& 614/SRT/2023/AYs.08-09 & 09-10 Diam International formed a reasonable belief that income chargeable

Jivaram Magaji Chaoudhary, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 1392/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1392/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jivaram Magaji Chaoudhary, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.4, Road No.5, Snehdeep Palace, Tingrenagar, Pune- 411032. Pan : Aalpc3973B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By Shri Uma Shankar Prasad : Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 48 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable

For Appellant: Shri V. L. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69BSection 69C

/NFAC 6 may kindly be set-aside, since according to him it is simply a change of opinion without any tangible material. In support of its contention, Ld. AR relied on various judgements, copies of which are produced in separate paper book, which are as under :- (i) CIT vs. Bhagwati

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Ambattur Constructions Private Limited, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 288/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.288/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ito M/S. Ambattur Constructions Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Ward-1(1) 86E-2, Industrial Estate, Vs. Chennai. Ambattur, Chennai-600 058. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-7390-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.47/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.288/Chny/2024) (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Ambattur Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Ito (Merged With Ambattur Infra India Pvt. Ltd.) बनाम/ Corporate Ward-1(1), 86E-2, Industrial Estate, Vs. Chennai. Ambattur, Chennai-600 058. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-7390-N (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Smt. D. Babitha (Jcit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. D. Babitha (JCIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Thus, the reopening was undertaken to add the impugned credits u/s 68 of the Act. 2.4 The assessee contended that there was no fresh tangible material for reopening the case of the assessee and the same was merely on the basis of information which was already available on record. However ... para-8, noted that the case was reopened on the basis of audit objection without there being any fresh tangible material. Upon perusal of Audit Memo dated 21-10-2020, Ld. AO mentioned that the observation memo was beyond the scope of assessment and the observation made in the audit