← 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

Mangla International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 1913/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing – 12/11/2024
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

initiated the re-assessment proceedings in the year under consideration. Thus, we are of the considered view that the said material constitutes new and tangible material for initiating the reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee. In ACIT v/s Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd., reported

Mangla International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1912/MUM/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2002-03
For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing – 12/11/2024
Section 115Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFOREMs. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL

Mangla International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1911/MUM/2024[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing – 12/11/2024
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE Ms. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Mangla International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 1910/MUM/2024[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing – 12/11/2024
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

initiated the re-assessment proceedings in the year under consideration. Thus, we are of the considered view that the said material constitutes new and tangible material for initiating the reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee. In ACIT v/s Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd., reported

Smt Meera Kumari, 2010-11 vs. ITO 1(1)(4), Etawah

ITA 3/AGR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

such a casual reopening reasons by the learned Assessing Officer are hardly sustainable in law as the same have to be recorded based on tangible material pinpointing escapement of all specific taxable income from being assessed as held in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India

Smt Meera Devi, Auraiya vs. ITO W1(1)(4), Etawah

ITA 2/AGR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

such a casual reopening reasons by the learned Assessing Officer are hardly sustainable in law as the same have to be recorded based on tangible material pinpointing escapement of all specific taxable income from being assessed as held in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs. Shri Govinddas Goverdhan Daga, Nagpur

ITA 517/NAG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 147Section 148Section 44A

Officer merely wishes to change the head of income from long term capital gain to that of income from other sources. There is no tangible material brought on record to show that income arising on sell of shares can be assessed as income from other sources. The reason recorded does ... could be issued in the case of assessee. Perusal of reasons recorded would show that there is no reference to any new tangible material brought on record subsequent to regular assessment completed in the case of assessee. There is thus no valid satisfaction in the eye of law for escapement

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer vs. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 1285/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer, C. R. Building – 305 001. ..... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Shailesh Mantri, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254Section 43B

income, profit and loss figures and also tax audit report which are forming part of the assessment records, still in the absence of any tangible material, the respondent authority is trying to take a different view despite the original scrutiny of assessment is done. Under the circumstance, the action sought

Srinivas Shah Radraraju, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.957/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Srinivas Shah Rudraraju Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Afcpr1979L] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-2, Guntur, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2014-15 On 31.03.2015, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.53,50,976/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason ‘Suspicious Long Term Capital Gain On Shares’ & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer, Noticed That The 2 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 68

assessment of Long-Term Capital Gain derived from purchase and sale of shares. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that there is fresh tangible material in the form of material, found during the course of survey which is subsequent to completion of assessment for the impugned A.Ys and therefore ... argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the reopening of the assessment was not based on any fresh tangible material but merely on change of opinion is devoid of any merit and unsustainable. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 10 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju

Smt Meera Kumare, Auraiya vs. ITO 1(1)(4), Etawah

ITA 5/AGR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

such a casual reopening reasons by the learned Assessing Officer are hardly sustainable in law as the same have to be recorded based on tangible material pinpointing escapement of all specific taxable income from being assessed as held in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India

Smt Meera Devi, Auraiya vs. ITO1(1)(4), Etawah

ITA 4/AGR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

such a casual reopening reasons by the learned Assessing Officer are hardly sustainable in law as the same have to be recorded based on tangible material pinpointing escapement of all specific taxable income from being assessed as held in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India

M/S. Shroff Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1951/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1951/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

escaped assessment to the tune of Rs.10.00 lakh. It is a clear case of borrowed satisfaction and the reopening is carried out without any tangible material in the possession of the AO. The case of the assessee has been opened after four years and there is no observation ... Tribunal, I am of the considered opinion that the re-assessment proceedings carried out in the instant case by the AO are without any tangible material and 7 M/s. Shroff Properties Pvt. Ltd. without independent application of mind even when all the details of the alleged transaction were duly explained

Manju Devi Daftari, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1571/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1571/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: 26.11.2024
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

fold, firstly that the re-assessment proceedings carried out are bad in law and they have been initiated by the Assessing Officer without any tangible material and applying independent mind to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Second Manju Devi Daftari fold of argument on merits ... Tribunal, I am of the considered opinion that the re-assessment proceedings carried out in the instant case by the AO are without any tangible material and without independent application of mind even when all the details of the alleged transaction were duly reflected in the regular return of income

Sunita Jain, Mahasamund vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 464/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.464/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sunita Jain 199, Ravi Shankar Shukla College Road, Mahasamund-413 445 (C.G.) Pan: Ahrpj8254B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

escaped assessment. It 7 Sunita Jain Vs. ITO, Mahasamund is stated that information about cash deposited was not sufficient and there was no tangible material in the possession of the AO for reopening and therefore, the reopening which was based only on AIR information was bad in law. I have

The DCIT, Circle-4(1) (1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Shah Foils Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1922/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1852/Ahd/2019 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1922/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 1. M/S.Shah Foils Ltd. 1. The Ito, Ward-4(1)(3) बनाम/ 26, Block-B, Galaxy Ahmedabad-380 015 V/S. Signature, Science City Rd Sola, Ahmedabad-380 060 2. The Ito, 2. M/S.Shah Foils Ltd. Ward-4(1)(3) 26, Block-B, Galaxy Ahmedabad-380 015 Signature, Science City Rd Sola, Ahmedabad-380 060 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaics 0490 F (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.C. Thaker, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 23.10.2019, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thaker, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

relied on multiple pieces of evidence, including seized diaries (A/8), third- party statements, and search findings of DGCEI which constituted fresh tangible material, which justified the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. The CIT(A) also rejected the assessee’s claim of violation of natural justice, noting ... lower authorities have rightly concluded that the information from DGCEI—evidencing cash payments through seized diary (A/8), corroborated by multiple statements—constituted fresh tangible material. This suffices to form the requisite “reason to believe” that income had escaped assessment, thereby justifying the issuance of notice under Section

M/S. Shah Foils Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

Appeal is partly allowed and the

ITA 1852/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thaker, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

relied on multiple pieces of evidence, including seized diaries (A/8), third- party statements, and search findings of DGCEI which constituted fresh tangible material, which justified the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. The CIT(A) also rejected the assessee's claim of violation of natural justice, noting ... lower authorities have rightly concluded that the information from DGCEI-evidencing cash payments through seized diary (A/8), corroborated by multiple statements—constituted fresh tangible material. This suffices to form the requisite “reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment, thereby justifying the issuance of notice under Section

Pixel Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1601/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1601/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

quashed. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act without any tangible material having link to escapement of income and hence the reopening be declared to be bad in law and the reassessment order be quashed

Satelite Trade Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 912/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

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 ... establish that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts. 9. Absence of independent application of mind and absence of tangible material: It is the foremost requirement of law that for reopening of assessment/ completed assessment the Assessing Officer must apply his mind on the material coming

DCIT Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5141/MUM/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora and Ms. Moksha Mehta, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

prospectively, vide Finance Act, 2012. 3. Erred in not holding that the reassessment proceedings were ultra vires in absence of there being any new tangible material in the hands of the assessing officer. 4. erred in not holding that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without independent application of mind ... prospectively, vide Finance Act, 2012. 3. Erred in not holding that the reassessment proceedings were ultra vires in absence of there being any new tangible material in the hands of the assessing officer. 4. erred in not holding that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without independent application of mind

DCIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5140/MUM/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora and Ms. Moksha Mehta, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

prospectively, vide Finance Act, 2012. 3. Erred in not holding that the reassessment proceedings were ultra vires in absence of there being any new tangible material in the hands of the assessing officer. 4. erred in not holding that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without independent application of mind ... prospectively, vide Finance Act, 2012. 3. Erred in not holding that the reassessment proceedings were ultra vires in absence of there being any new tangible material in the hands of the assessing officer. 4. erred in not holding that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without independent application of mind