“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

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3472/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

upholding validity of reassessment proceedings, despite the same having been initiated on the basis of mere change of opinion, without any new tangible material to the possession of the assessing officer M CITCA) subsequent to completion of assessment under section 143(3) r. w.s. 153A r.w.s. 144C ... finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of validity of the reopening. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted to the tangible material gathered during the course of the survey while rejecting the grounds challenging validity of the reopening. We do not finding any infirmity

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas

ITA 3471/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3470/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 69C

tangible the basis of mere change of opinion, without any new tangible the basis of mere change of opinion, without any new tangible material to the possession of the assessing officer M CI material to the possession of the assessing officer M CI material to the possession of the assessing ... change of reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of mere reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of mere opinion’ without being any being any tangible material in possessi possession of the Assessing Officer s subsequent to completion of the regular ubsequent to completion of the regular assessment

Hero Motocorp Ltd (As Successor of Hero Investment P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

Whether the reassessment order dated 29.12.2018 lacked valid 'reason to believe that income of the appellant had escaped assessment’ in terms of absence of tangible material and beyond the scope of first proviso to section 147 of the Act, inasmuch as there was no failure on part of the appellant ... paper book, we find that what the AO, harps upon, as 'reasons to believe', was not on the basis of any tangible material, from which certain fact would emanate with consequences to follow without any process of drawing some presumption. But here in the case

Sadhana Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Palghar vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 55/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Unmesh J NarvekarFor Respondent: ShriDr. Kishore Dhule - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(C)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee submits a reply thereto, leading to the passing of the order of assessment, a reopening in the absence of any new tangible material would be nothing but a change of opinion, which would not furnish to the A.O. a basis for his 'reasons to believe' that income chargeable ... truly all material facts. 22. So far as the submission of learned advocate Mr. Divatia for the writ applican t regarding in absence of 'tangible material' reopening as regards escapement of i ncome from the assessment amounting to 'change of opinion' is concerned, this Co urt agrees with the submission

Interarch Building Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8280/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarinterarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, B-30, Sector-57, Noida, Circle-11(1), Uttar Pradesh New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaci0106J

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 80I

issued to assessee." 5. On perusal of the aforesaid reasons, it could be safely concluded that the ld. AO did not possess any fresh tangible material which has live link with formation of belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment warranting reopening within the meaning of section

Mrs. Neelam Agrawal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.756/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Neelam Agarwal ………. Appellant (Pan: Adcpa3772G) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-37(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, , Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 22.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revision Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kolkat-13 [In Short Ld. “Pr. Cit”] Dated 15.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Ao, Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.03.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Revising The Reassessment Order Which Was Itself Invalid & Bad In Law As Sanction For Reopening Of Assessment Proceedings Was Not Taken From Prescribed Authority As Per Section 151. I.T.A. No. 756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, Ay : 2015-16

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

proceeding itself deserves to be quashed because there was no proper approval u/s. 151 of the Act, reopening was bad for lack of any tangible material and confirmation of belief. Revisionary proceedings have also been challenged on the ground that the alleged issue has already been examined ... been done simply on the basis of information from Investigation Wing. No verification has been carried out by Ld. AO to unearth any tangible material. Neither the name of any broker or entry operator has been spelt out in the reasons nor any statement was collected where the assessee

Green Orchand Farm Houses, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 879/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Saravanan B., D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154Section 43C

been decided in the assessment 3.7 order u/s 143(3) any deviation from this decision without the benefit of any additional information or tangible material by the Assessing Officer in an assessment reopened under section 147 would amount to change of opinion. This would result in a review ... invoked the provisions of section 43CA of the Act while framing the assessment order itself. According to the ld. A.R., there was no fresh tangible material to invoke the provisions of section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act and there was no enquiry of whatsoever required to come

Mali Ram Yadav, Shahpura vs. ITO, Behror

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 513/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 69A

assessee. Information regarding cash deposited with the bank is not a prima facie belief that cash deposited is income of the assesse without having tangible material in possession of the assessing officer. There has to be tangible material in the possession of the Assessing Officer on which he forms ... belief that income has escaped assessment. This is applicable before pre amended period earlier to 1.4.2021. Only on the basis of information without having tangible material the reopening is bad. Mere cash deposited information is not sufficient, not a prima facie belief that income is from undisclosed sources The Assessing

Rajesh Products, Tonk, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 626/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Jain, CA (Th. V.C)For Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Ensure Builders and Developers, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1093/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri Atul Madhavan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147

capital introduced into the firm, and the credits are clearly reflected in the bank statements, unless the A.O(s) brought on record tangible material/ evidence to prove that the amounts, which had been received by the investors/ lenders from their sub- investors/ sub-lenders were actually received by Such

A.C.I.T. Cir. 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Doshion Watesr Solutions P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA NO

ITA 1503/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

however, learned CIT(A) held that the re-opening of assessment was bad in law for the reasons that it was made without any tangible material and further that the AO had not made any addition in respect of the share premium on the grounds on which the re-assessment

Srishti Associates, Kota, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota, Kota-Rajasthan

ITA 587/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 246ASection 44A

gross violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, the additions made by the AO on the basis of such statement without any tangible material is not sustainable in law and liable to be deleted. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO is also deleted on merits apart from the legal

Tanvi Sandeep Mathur, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 54

that the reopening of the assessment is bad and illegal as reopening is on the basis of review of assessment records without any fresh tangible material on record. It is clear that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment by verifying the case records and no new tangible material came

Balkishan Koushal, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 72/IND/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jul 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

giving weightage to assessee’s submission. Ld. AR made a strong contention that the AO has made addition on mere suspicion without having any tangible material in hand, therefore the addition deserves to be deleted. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue made a proposal that the present matters should

Balkishan Koshal, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 69/IND/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jul 2024AY 2013-2014

Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

Shankar Sewani, New Market vs. Assessing Officer, Aaykar Bhawan

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 25/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Shankar Sewani, Dcit-1(1), 10 Kala Niketan, Bhopal New Market, Vs. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adkps6959H Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 234BSection 3

sold/purchased immovable property & other supporting documents, genuineness of capital gain shown by assessee in his return of income is not verifiable. There are tangible material on record to show that the assessee has failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts. Therefore, I have reason to believe that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1959/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 148

circumstances of the case and in law, the la. CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening proceedings even when no new tangible material was found and the reopening was based on materials already on record. 2.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... counsel for the assessee referred reasons recorded available on page 2 and 3 of the Paper Book and submitted that no new tangible material or information has been referred by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment merely on the basis

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Ltu 2, Mumbai

ITA 1677/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 148

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of India, Circle-(Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year ssessee for assessment year

ITA 1676/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. C Naresh

Section 144B

even when no new rred in upholding the reopening proceedings even when no new rred in upholding the reopening proceedings even when no new tangible material was found and the reopening was based on materials tangible material was found and the reopening was based on materials tangible material was found ... page 2 a for the assessee referred reasons recorded available on page 2 a of the Paper Book and submitted that no new tangible material or of the Paper Book and submitted that no new tangible material or of the Paper Book and submitted that no new tangible material