← 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

Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed and

ITA 3448/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. Ground Floor, Rubberwala House, Dr. A Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3508/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3505/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3504/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3549/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3503/Mum/2023 2

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpa
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

untenable. We are in agreement with the Ld. AR that these presumptive observations made by the AO cannot be construed as an incriminating or tangible material which would suggest that the unsecured loans were in the nature of unexplained cash credits. 4.13 We now come

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai vs. Hemalatha Rajan, Chennai

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 493/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.11/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7, No. 61, Tas Enclave, C3, Golden Kings Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 121, Court, 10Th Main Road, Santhi Colony, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aadpp4895M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.492 & 493/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Hemalatha Rajan, 3Rd Floor, Golden Kings Court, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. No. 61, Tas Enclave, Santhi Colony, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 11/Chny/2020 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

above, in order to avoid repetition, we agree with the reasons recorded by the ld. CIT(A) i.e., no new fresh information or tangible material brought on record by the Assessing Officer to reopen already concluded reassessment. Admittedly, the agreement dated 20.08.2008 was before the Assessing Officer

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai vs. Hemalatha Rajan, Chennai

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 492/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.11/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7, No. 61, Tas Enclave, C3, Golden Kings Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 121, Court, 10Th Main Road, Santhi Colony, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aadpp4895M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.492 & 493/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Hemalatha Rajan, 3Rd Floor, Golden Kings Court, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. No. 61, Tas Enclave, Santhi Colony, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 11/Chny/2020 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

above, in order to avoid repetition, we agree with the reasons recorded by the ld. CIT(A) i.e., no new fresh information or tangible material brought on record by the Assessing Officer to reopen already concluded reassessment. Admittedly, the agreement dated 20.08.2008 was before the Assessing Officer

ACIT Non Corporate Circle-7, Chennai vs. Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Chennai

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 11/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.11/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7, No. 61, Tas Enclave, C3, Golden Kings Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 121, Court, 10Th Main Road, Santhi Colony, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aadpp4895M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.492 & 493/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Hemalatha Rajan, 3Rd Floor, Golden Kings Court, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. No. 61, Tas Enclave, Santhi Colony, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 11/Chny/2020 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

above, in order to avoid repetition, we agree with the reasons recorded by the ld. CIT(A) i.e., no new fresh information or tangible material brought on record by the Assessing Officer to reopen already concluded reassessment. Admittedly, the agreement dated 20.08.2008 was before the Assessing Officer

Brentford Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-1(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 452/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.452/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Brentford Merchants Pvt. Ltd...…..………...........…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aabcb2698B] Vs. Acit(Osd), Ward-1(4), Kolkata…......................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 30, 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 13.02.2024 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 Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. 1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding The Validity Of Re-Opening Proceedings U/S 147/144 Which Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding The Re-Opening Proceedings In Spite Of The Fact That The Reasons To Believe Were Invalid & Improper Thereby, Vitiating The Reopening Proceedings.

Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

time and again by the various High Courts 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

Kishore Ghevarchand Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms

ITA 278/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Kishor Ghevarchand Jain Circle -1, Kalyan D.C.I.T. 3Rd Floor, 1St Floor, Porwal Bhawan, Mohan Plaza, Vs. Near Vaishya Mandir Hall, Wayale Nagar, Kasarhat, Kalyan Khadak Pada, Thane - 421301. Kalyan (W.) - 421301. Pan: Aazpj6248E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The „Act‟ In Short] Vide Its Din & Order No. Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057548827(1) Dated 31/10/2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Following Ground Of Appeal Have Been Raised:

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 69Section 69C

application of mind; c. on suspicion and doubts and for making roving enquiries d. without making any independent inquiry himself; e. Without any new tangible material information related to the transaction f. the approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is without requisite objective satisfaction and is given

Speedking Courier Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-4(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4677/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13 Speedking Courier Income Tax Officer- Services Pvt. Ltd. 4(3)(3), 25/27, Old Hanuman Galli, Room No. 648, Vs. 1St Cross Lane, 6Th Floor, Kalbadevi, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400 002. Maharshi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan: Aaics3715M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) Sr., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 16 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. The Appellant Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Income Tax Officer- 4(3)(3) Mumbai By Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Addition Of Rs.1,53,00,000/- Made Under Section 68 Of The Act Is Not Justified. 1. The Ld Cit(A) Is Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,53,00,000/- Made By The Ld. A.O. Under Section 68 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Basic Condition To Invoke The Provisions Of Section 68 Are Not Satisfied In The Present Case. Hence, The Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Act Is Not In Accordance With The Law & The Same May Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT) Sr., D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 234BSection 68

first proviso to section 147 of the Act. The reopening has been done without having any reason to believe based on any tangible material that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Thus, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is without jurisdiction ... appellant as the Assessing Officer has rightly assumed the jurisdiction u/s. 148 of the Act in the present case as there was tangible material in his possession to reopen the assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act in view of the detailed discussion made in Para