← 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

DCIT-CC-8(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg

ITA 2462/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal / Shri Atul Suraiya / Ms. Bhavika JainFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR) / Ms. Rajeshwari Menon (SR DR)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

reassessment proceedings were void-ab-initio 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that no new facts or tangible material have come to the knowledge of the assessing officer reopening of the assessment. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete

DCIT-CC-8(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed,

ITA 2460/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

reassessment proceedings were void-ab-initio 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that no new facts or tangible material have come to the knowledge of the assessing officer reopening of the assessment. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete

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

ITA 164/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal / Shri Atul Suraiya / Ms. Bhavika JainFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR) / Ms. Rajeshwari Menon (SR DR)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

reassessment proceedings were void-ab-initio 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that no new facts or tangible material have come to the knowledge of the assessing officer reopening of the assessment. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete

Bhartiya Samruddhi Investments and Consulting Services Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 4(2), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1637/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Yr. : 2012-13 Bhartiya Samruddhi Vs. Acit, Circle 4(2), Investments & Consulting New Delhi Services Limited, F-5, Ground Floor, Greater Kailash, Kailash Colony, Part-I, New Delhi – 110 048 (Pan: Aaacb5336R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 37

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27.03.2023 relating to assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds:- 1. There is no tangible material, which is a pre-condition, available with the AO to allege the escapement of income, the reopening tantamount to only review of original assessment based ... issue of notice is neither made available to the assessee nor forming part of reasons recorded or the rejection letter. There is no tangible material, which is a pre-condition, available with the AO to allege the escapement of income, the reopening tantamount to only review the original assessment based

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Mahaveer Kumar Jain, Jaipur

ITA 469/JPR/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024
For Appellant: Shri Tanju Agarwal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Section 69

assessee during the reassessment proceedings. However, it is required to be noted that except the DVO's report, there was no further tangible material before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, solely on the basis of the DVO's report which, as per the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

Saket Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Ms. Satwika Jhan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

involved was pertaining to bonus payable by the assessee and not trade creditor. Therefore, where the AO has given the finding based on the tangible material that the claim of the assessee is either false or the liability was otherwise ceased to exist then the creditors had denied any outstanding

Prabhati Devi, Dausa vs. ITO Ward Dausa, Dausa

ITA 1031/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

could not give the AO prima facie belief that income has escaped assessment. The AO is required to form prima facie opinion based on tangible material which provides the nexus or the link having reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The AO was also required to examine whether ... reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The power is not akin to a review. The existence of tangible material is necessary to ensure against an arbitrary exercise of power. Aventis Pharma Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom). In the matter of Varshaben Sanatbhai

Lakshmi Gayathri Arvapalli, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 848/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.847 & 848/Chny/2023 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Lakshmi Gayathri Arvapalli, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.1, Palat Madhavan Road, Vs. Income Tax, Mahalingapuram, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai – 600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aaipa 3035F]

For Appellant: Shri J. Vignesh, C.A &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

appellant's husband which was later retraced and which does not have any evidentiary value after retraction and which was also not supported any tangible material. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the fact that provisions of Section 68 are not applicable

Lakshmi Gayathri Arvapalli, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-1(2), Chennai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 847/CHNY/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.847 & 848/Chny/2023 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Lakshmi Gayathri Arvapalli, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.1, Palat Madhavan Road, Vs. Income Tax, Mahalingapuram, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai – 600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aaipa 3035F]

For Appellant: Shri J. Vignesh, C.A &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

appellant's husband which was later retraced and which does not have any evidentiary value after retraction and which was also not supported any tangible material. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the fact that provisions of Section 68 are not applicable

Dalas Biotech Limited, Bhiwadi vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 147/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv (Physical)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

below, Thus, it is seen that other than the suspicion raised by the assessing officer as to the genuineness of the transaction, no credible/ tangible material was brought on record by the assessing authority as may have led to any satisfaction or finding that the transaction was not genuine

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2892/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule- CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

under: i. The documents filed during the assessment proceedings were verified by the AO by applying his mind and hence there was no tangible material to form a view that income has escaped the assessment. ii. It is a clear case of change of opinion ... Court held as under: - "There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the assessee that there was no tangible material before the Assessing Officer on the basis of which the assessment could have been reopened and what is sought to be done is to propose

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Sh. Naval Kishore, Kota

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 456/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

assessee earned undisclosed income /profit from Bajaj Enclave Project It is argued that mere admissions is not conclusive proof unless it is corroborated with tangible material and evidence. No doubt, the assessee in answer to Q-8 & 9 stated the undisclosed income and offered for taxation. As already discussed

Income Tax Office, Ward-6(2), Jaipur vs. Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 236/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ratan Lal Goyal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further inquiry was undertaken by Assessing Officer, said information could not be said to be tangible material per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis was not justified. In case of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com ... basis of information from DIT(Investigation) that assessee had received accommodation entry and there was no independent application of mind by Assessing Officer to tangible material and reasons failed to demonstrate link between tangible material and formation of reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, reassessment was not justified

Naval Kishore, Kota vs. ACIT DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and that

ITA 205/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka (CIT)
Section 139Section 143Section 153ASection 234ASection 68

assessee earned undisclosed income /profit from Bajaj Enclave Project It is argued that mere admissions is not conclusive proof unless it is corroborated with tangible material and evidence. No doubt, the assessee in answer to Q-8 & 9 stated the undisclosed income and offered for taxation. As already discussed

Rukhmani Traders, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 822/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Rukhmani Traders, Asst. Cit -18(3), 6Th Floor, A Wing, Aurus Chambers, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Vs. S.S. Amrutwar Marg, Behind Mumbai-400021. Mahindra Towers, Worli, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aalfr 1619 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shreyash ShahFor Respondent: Mrs. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 151

relied upon to form your opinion. In fact, s relied upon to form your opinion. In fact, your honour do not have any tangible material to form a belief that your honour do not have any tangible material to form a belief that your honour do not have any tangible

Ishoo Narang, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2022 & S.A. No.1/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaupn9082B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/07/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Al The Mandatory Preconditions Before Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Were Duly Complied & Met With By The A.O.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 147Section 68

ground that the reopening of the assessment is merely on the basis of change of opinion without there being any fresh tangible material which suggests escapement of income. The appellant has also challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards the consideration received from sale of shares in light ... 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 Page

Prasant Desai, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 61, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 735/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.735/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Prasant Desai……..……………….………...........………………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite – 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Acypd1511B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-61, Kolkata.……………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 25, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.75,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unsecured Loans Received From M/S Festive Deal Trade Pvt. Ltd. Treating The Same As Bogus.

Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessment. It has been held time and again that the reasons to believe regarding the escapement of the income should be based on certain tangible material and it should not be mere pretence of the Assessing Officer. The reasons to believe does not mean reason to suspect. Reopening

M/S Flora Exports, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 31(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 502/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.502/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Flora Exports……………….………...........………………....Appellant 17/2/H/13, Smith Lane, Taltala, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Aabff1684J] Vs. Ito, Ward-31(1), Kolkata.……………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 01, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 25, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 151Section 250

assessment. It has been held time and again that the reasons to believe regarding the escapement of the income should be based on certain tangible material. The reasons to believe does not mean reason to suspect. Reopening of the assessment is not permitted for making fishing and roving enquiries

Sadhu Ram Balani, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

ITA 470/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Indore24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 133A

capital gains to large number of beneficiaries in lieu of unaccounted cash. These observations of the AO in the assessment order cannot constitute any tangible material or evidence to show that the transaction of the assessee is bogus being an accommodation entry. The AO in the show cause notice

Aditya Baheti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 562/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Khandelwal, C.A ( V.H.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148

cannot be made simply on thebasis of statement alone. The same has to be substantiated and corroboratedeither by enquiries or by linking it with tangible material/ evidence. It is a settledlawthatstatement,thattooof3rdperson,alonecannotbetreatedasincriminatingmater ialforthepurposesofmakingadditionforassessmentcompletedu/s143(3).Ithasbeenheldin manyjudgmentsthatmerestatementu/s132(4)oru/s131isnotsufficienttomakeanaddition. Astatementmademustberelatabletosomeincriminatingmaterialorthestatementmustbem aderelatabletomaterialbysubsequentinquiry/investigations. 2). Judgement of ITAT Hydrebad in the case ... term capital gains to large number of beneficiaries in lieu of unaccounted cash.These observations of the AO in the assessment order cannot constitute any tangible material or evidence to show that the transaction of the assessee is bogus being an accommodation entry. The AO in the show cause notice though