“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Jaipur Min Dev Syndicate Ltd., Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 677/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Patni (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 10ASection 143(3)

relied upon the finding recorded in the order of the lower authority and submitted that the assessee failed support the working with tangible material more particularly assessee failed to demonstrate about the finance cost which is the higher and therefore, the addition made is based on the percentile of sales

Precious Jewels Corporation, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ACIT DCIT Cir-6, Jaipur, C-Sechme

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 639/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Patni (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 10ASection 143(3)

DCIT 19 3, Mumbai vs. Sanjiv Mahendra Parikh, Mumbai

ITA 3515/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessee against which objections were filed by the Assessee contending, inter alia, that the Assessing Officer did not have any fresh tangible material to form the basis of belief that income had escaped assessment. Reassessment proceedings were initiated merely on account of change of opinion on re- examination ... statement recorded by president of M/s Anant Rathi Commodities Limited (ARCL) (who were not even the broker of the Assessee) could not form tangible material for reopening the assessment as there was no link between the aforesaid material and the escapement of income, if any. It was highlighted that ARCL

Sanjeev Kumar Goyal, Fatehabad vs. DCIT, CC-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 80/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

record a finding that the assessee has made investments during the financial year in the construction/purchase of the building, there has to be some tangible material in possession of the Assessing Officer which demonstrate that certain amount has been actually expended by the assessee during the year towards the purchase

Srujitha Annapareddy, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.253/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Surjitha Annapareddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12(1) Pan:Bnwpa6703L Hydrabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

including the investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata opined that, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on the basis of fresh tangible material vis-à-vis escapement of income. The learned CIT (A) had also rejected the explanation of the assessee with regard to Long-Term Capital ... settled legal proposition that for assumption of jurisdiction under s. 147, the AO has to form a prima facie opinion on the basis of tangible material that there is an escapement of income, the opinion formed may be subjective but the reasons recorded or the information available on record must

M/S. Saroj Embrods Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1352/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

after going into the legal aspect of the issue. The ld. DR prayed that in view of these facts and circumstances especially independent and tangible materials, the legal ground raised by the assessee may kindly be dismissed by upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue

Saroj Embrods Private Limited., Hooghly vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1351/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Alma Assets Consultancy Private Limited., Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1092/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1092/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Alma Assets Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.………............…...……………....Appellant 341-K1, Post Office: Sahabana, Chandigarh Road, Mundian Khurd Ludhiana. [Pan: Aaica6234H] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20 , 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 21.08.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] 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.10,26,99,100/- Made By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Cash Credits Into The Income Of The Assessee. 3. The Assessee Through Its Grounds Of Appeal Has Contested Not Only The Validity Of The Additions On Merits But Also Relating To The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act & Also The Validity Of The Assessment For Want Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

satisfaction. It has been held time and again that the belief of the Assessing Officer regarding escapement of income should be based on some tangible material and it should not be a mere pretence of the Assessing Officer. The belief of the Assessing Officer should be based

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Spr and RG Constructions Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1486/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1485 & 1486/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 V. The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Spr & Rg Constructions- Corporate Ward-6(1), Pvt. Ltd., 57, 1St Floor, Chennai. Narayana Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

came up before this Tribunal and the Tribunal was pleased to allow the legal issue by finding that the AO did not had any tangible material to re-open the assessment. The Tribunal held in the assessee’s own case (supra) for AY 2013-14 as under: 8. We have ... review and power to frame reassessment. It was held that even after 01.04.1999 the AO has power to reopen the assessment provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income. It was further held that there can be no review on an assessment

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Spr and RG Constructions Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1485/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Maunang Farms Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), (Now ACIT., Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 110/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

under section 147 of the Act by the Ld.AO merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without application of mind in absence of any tangible material and /or independent clinching evidence as well as cogent material evidence on record for reopening of the case of the appellant company and therefore ... assessee under Section 147 of the Act merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without application of mind in absence of any tangible material and/or independent clinching evidence is not justified. As regards ground no.2, the Ld. AR submitted that addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG

Sudha Dhoot, Kolkata, Wet Bengal vs. Addl JCIT (A) 12, Mumbai

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

ITA 4054/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 250

have filed the return with in due date, i.e. on 05.08.2017. Addition by the learned AO proved that there was no tangible material to believe and neither there was not any application of ind and without any basis and ground. 3. No one can be punished twice for some offence

Mangaldeep Multistate Urban Co.Op.Cr. Soc. Ltd., Kolkatta vs. ACIT - CC- 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 2150/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prasad KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 13Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

aforesaid information, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated. We are of the considered view that the said information constitutes new and tangible material for initiating the reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee. In ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers

Mangaldeep Multistate Urban Co.Op.Cr. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - CC- 2 (1), Mumbai

ITA 2149/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prasad KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Mangaldeep Multistate Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 2138/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prasad KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 13Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

M/S. Vadera Enterprises, Gondia vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-5, Nagpur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 101/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

escaped assessment’ and issued his notice dated 24.11.2015 . 3. This tribunal asked the Learned DR during the course of hearing to indicate the tangible material leading the Assessing Officer to form his foregoing reason(s) of assessee’s taxable income having escaped assessment. And that too in case of sec.143 ... regular assessment since there is no discussion in the assessment herein about the discovery of any fresh tangible material. No reply came from Revenue side. That being the case, I hereby quote CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited [2010] 187 Taxman 312 (SC) to hold that such a reopening

Income Tax Office -34(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Prime Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4246/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41Section 41(1)

assessee to disclose full and true material facts. From the bare perusal of the reasons recorded it is seen that there is no tangible material and in fact, AO is re-examining the same records, i.e., balance sheet and profit and loss account to record his reasons to belive without ... facts necessary for assessment. Unless that failure is not established, the reopening cannot be done. 9. Apart from that, there has to be some tangible material and information coming on record having live link nexus with the income escaping assessment, especially more so in the cases where assessment has been

M/S Prime Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -25(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4152/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41Section 41(1)

Income Tax Officer- 19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Parasmal Fozhraj Sanghvi HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4017/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Income Tax Officer- 19(2)(4) Vs. Parasmal Fozhraj Sanghvi Huf Piramal Chamber 10/2 Atul Niwas, 7Th Khetwadi Room No. 405, Lalbaug Svp Road, Girgaum Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400004 Pan/Gir No. : Aaahp5379M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: ------ None -----

Section 143(3)Section 148

section 147/148 of the Act is on the basis of reason to suspect and not on reason to believe. (b) There is no new tangible material in possession of the Assessing Officer which justify issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act (c) The initiation of proceeding under section

ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 645/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 263

that the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year has escaped assessment. The said reasons to believe could be based on any tangible material or information received by the Assessing Officer. In this case, the letter written by the assessee to the Assessing Officer was nothing else