← All Phrases

“fresh tangible material”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 147398 judgments

The decision most relied on for fresh tangible material is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on fresh 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.

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.

CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd.
325 ITR 285 · 2010 · High Court
243
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid and void ab initio if initiated based on 'borrowed satisfaction' without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind, or merely on documents already available on record without fresh tangible material.

CIT v. Usha International Ltd.
348 ITR 485 · 2012 · High Court
231
citing judgments

A reassessment is invalid due to 'mere change of opinion' if an issue was raised during original assessment but no addition was made, implying the issue was examined. However, if a subject matter was not examined and no opinion was formed, the principle of 'change of opinion' does not apply.

ITO v. TechSpan India (P) Ltd.
92 Taxmann.com 361 · 2018 · Supreme Court
194
citing judgments

Reassessment under Section 147/148 is invalid if it constitutes a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer without any fresh tangible material, especially after the assessee made a full and truthful disclosure during the original scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3).

Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO
324 ITR 154 · 2010 · High Court
179
citing judgments

Reasons recorded under Section 148 for reopening an assessment are jurisdictional facts that form the sole basis for assuming power and cannot be changed, supplemented, or corrected later. Such reasons must be based on fresh tangible material indicating income escapement.

Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT
308 ITR 195 · 2009 · High Court
175
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot issue a notice under Section 148 to reopen an assessment when all material facts were already before the AO during the original assessment, even if the AO failed to apply their mind at that time. Such an action constitutes an impermissible review of a concluded assessment rather than a reassessment based on fresh tangible material.

Judgments citing fresh tangible material

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bareilly vs. Wave Distilleries and Breweries Limited, Bareilly

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 153/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Vibhu Jain and Sumit Lalchandani, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt. Richa Rastogi, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 148

notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as there is no fresh tangible material on the basis of which the purported reasons have been recorded and therefore, there are no valid reasons to believe in the eyes of law. 6. That

ACIT, Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Panchkula

In the result, we upheld the

ITA 1458/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Harish Nayyar C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 194ASection 36Section 40

holding that there was no reason to form a belief with the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction in absence of any fresh tangible material that any income chargeable to tax escaped assessment? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is right

Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 771/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 770, 771, 772 & 773/Chny/2020 िनधा" रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, Income Tax Officer, C/O. Aparna Nandakumar, V. Non-Corporate Ward -1(2), Advocate & Tax Consultant, Chennai. J Nandakumar & Poojesh J (Advocates) No. 6, Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Acypj-0739-K] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1416/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Hyderbad vs. Sew Infrastucture Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1723/HYD/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

invoke provisions of Section 147 of the Act, there should be income which has escaped assessment, and such escapement should be based on fresh tangible material which comes to the possession of the AO subsequent to the completion of the original assessment and further, the formation of belief of escapement ... income should have a live nexus with reasons to believe and fresh tangible material. Similarly, the provisions of Section 153A deal with assessment in case of search or requisition, and as per the said provisions, notwithstanding anything contained in certain provisions of the Act, in case of a person where

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1722/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1721/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA

Jignesh Sukhdevbhai Patel L/H of Sukhdev Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(3)(6), Surat

In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 128/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 128/Srt/2023 (Ay 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Jignesh Sukhdevbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(6), 43, Ashutosh Nagri, Surat, Room No.606, बनाम Jahangirpura, Olpad Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Opp. New Civil Vs Surat-395 005 Hospital, Majura Gate, [Pan : Ajapp 1141 J] Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 142A(1)Section 142A(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 50C

order of lower authorities. Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that at the time of reopening assessment, Assessing Officer has received fresh tangible material which was sufficient for recording reasons that income of assessment has escaped from assessment. There is no dispute that assessee has sold the impugned land ... show whether all such facts were disclosed fully and or truly at the time of filing return of income. In our view, the fresh tangible material came to the notice of Assessing Officer and only on the basis of information received from ITO Ward-3(3), Surat that a survey

Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

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

ITA 2017/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora, H G Sharma
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

dated 31.01.2014, he submitted that the issue of loans has already been scrutinized during the original assessment proceedings, therefore, in absence of any fresh tangible material, the re-assessment proceedings initiated are merely based on change of opinion. He submitted that the Assessing Officer in the instant case has relied

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 1178/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

dated 31.01.2014, he submitted that the issue of loans has already been scrutinized during the original assessment proceedings, therefore, in absence of any fresh tangible material, the re-assessment proceedings initiated are merely based on change of opinion. He submitted that the Assessing Officer in the instant case has relied

Ratna Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 132/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

ADIT (Investigation), Kolkata, but there is no evidence as to the basis of such report. Therefore, in our considered view, unless there is fresh tangible material in the possession of the Assessing Officer which came to his possession subsequent to completion of the 20 original assessment, in our considered view ... reopen the assessment, but such power should be based on formation of a reasonable belief of escapement of income on the basis of fresh tangible material. In the present case, going by the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, it is undisputedly clear that the Assessing Officer has reopened

Sockalingam (HUF), Madurai vs. ACIT, Cirrcle - 1, Madurai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1849/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1849/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Sockalingam (Huf), V. Income Tax, Plot No.423, Kk Nagar East, Circle -1, 9Th Street, Madurai – 625 020. Madurai. [Pan: Aaxhs-5962-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54F

notice could not have been issued beyond 31.3.2018 as per Proviso to the unamended sec.147 of the Act in the absence of any fresh tangible material to reopen the assessment. 6. The CIT(A) NFAC further failed to appreciate that the notice for reopening was issued to apply sec.50C

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

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

Same Deutz Fahr Italia Spa, Italy vs. Assistant Commissioner, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 937/CHNY/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250o

change of opinion to occur. Regarding assessee's argument that subsequent to submission of return of income by the assessee, there is no fresh tangible material basis on which reopening has been done and also that there is no failure on the part of the :-25-: ITA. No:937/Chny/2024 assessee

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Macmillan Education India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2036/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 2036/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 66/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Macmillan Education India Corporate Ward -4(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. No.21, Patullos Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan:Aafcm-5564-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Mr. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit Department By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 147

disallowed." 10. Hence, it is submitted that re-opening for the year under consideration should be upheld for the reason that fresh tangible material came to the knowledge of the AO regarding the claim for :-9-: ITA. No:2036/Chny/2024 & CO No: 66/Chny/2024 the provision of the return right which

Kaatyaayini Steels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-12(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4398/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Jay ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

ought to have held the notice issued u/s.148 as bad-in-law, since had been issued in absence of fresh tangible material and on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without having reason to believe of alleged escapement of income; 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case

Kaatyaayini Steels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-12(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4397/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Jay ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

ought to have held the notice issued u/s.148 as bad-in-law, since had been issued in absence of fresh tangible material and on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without having reason to believe of alleged escapement of income; 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case

Syed Asim, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1888/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1885, 1886, 1887 & 1888/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Syed Asim, The Income Tax Officer, New No.4, Old No.2, Chandralekha Vs. Non Corporate Ward-3(3), Muthusamy Mudaliar Street, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aveps 3501P]

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

statement is further eroded. c. The notice for initiating reassessment proceedings have been based on mere assumptions, surmises and conjectures without any fresh tangible material and proves to have been initiated solely for the purpose of conducting a roving enquiry based on the financial statements filed by the appellant ... surmises. e. The Joint Commission of Income Tax has mechanically given approval for re-opening of the case. f. There is no fresh tangible material for re-opening the assessment as is evident from the additions made in the assessment. 4. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the ground that