“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

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 946/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.775/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 034. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.946/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011. ) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

India Ltd. (320 ITR 561). We are of the opinion that the formation of belief has to be on the basis of some fresh tangible material or new information which is not the case here. This being so, reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed on legal grounds

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 775/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, Chennai vs. DCIT (International Tax)-1 (1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 349/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.349/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Asv Ramana Towers, International Taxation 1(1) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aadcd 3705D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 155(14)

assessment proceedings when there was no failure from the appellant in disclosing the materials during the scrutiny proceedings and there was no fresh tangible material for initiating re-assessment proceedings. 3.5. The reasons provided by the Ld. AO for initiation of reassessment proceedings merely reflects a "change in opinion

Cheyur Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Business Ward - 2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 334/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 54B

case where the return was processed u/s.143(1). 8. For that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that no fresh tangible material came into the possession of the Assessing Officer for the issuance of the notice u/s.148 and hence the assessment is liable to be quashed ... Income and it is not permissible for the AO, after a gap of more than four years and in the absence of any fresh tangible material to come to the conclusion that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 18. In a Judgement rendered by the Special Bench

Goyal Vegoils Limited, Kasar, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle -2, Kota

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

ITA 243/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

considering the statement and all other material, was completed on 20 th December 2016. We repeatedly asked Mr. Suresh Kumar to identify the fresh tangible material that was available with the department and the date on which it was received to which there was no answer because

Anilkumar A. Tiwari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-25(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2496/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrianikesh Banerjee, Jm

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

circumstances of the case and in law. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s 148 issued in absence of fresh tangible material, borrowed satisfaction and without having valid reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; 2.0 On facts and circumstances

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 637/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

believe that our income has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2013-14 is nothing but change of opinion. (v) There is no fresh tangible material coming to the possession of the Id. AO which could reasonably give rise to believe that our income has escaped assessment. (vi) The reasons recorded

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T., Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 1067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

Ranjay Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is restored back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer with the direction to the assessee to furnish the necessary details before the Assessing

ITA 308/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisunil Kumar Singh, Jm A.Y.2011-12

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 68

Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, The AO erred reopening the assessment of the appellant under section 147 of the assessment without fresh tangible material . The A erred in reopening application of mind and without having valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment simply on the basis

Jain Machine Tools, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(1)(7), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2110/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jain Machine Tools, Ito, Ward 26(1)(7), 16, Meghal Industrial Estate, Room 625, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Vs. Devidayal Road, Mulund (West) Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfj 6163 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Devendra Jain

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

proceedings u/s 147 of the Act without being initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act without being in possession of any fresh tangible material after completion of the first in possession of any fresh tangible material after completion of the first in possession of any fresh tangible material

Krishna Murthy Ella, Hyderabad vs. DCIT-Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 585/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.585/Hyd/2023 & Sa No.10/Hyd/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.585/Hyd/2023) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Krishna Murthy Ella Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Aacpe6389G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

from reasons for reopening of the assessment where the Assessing Officer has formed reasonable belief of escapement of income on the basis of fresh tangible material which is information received from the Assessing Officer of M/s. Bharat Biotech International Ltd where it was noticed that the number of shares held ... Before initiating proceedings u/s 147 for re-assessment of any income, escapement of income should be proved and such escapement is based on fresh tangible material come to the possession of the Assessing Officer. In other Page

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Casagrand Builder Private Limited, Chennai

Appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 720/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.720/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jcit(Osd) M/S. Casagrand Premier Builder Limited बनाम Corporate Circle-1(1) (Earlier Known As M/S Casa Grand Builder P. Ltd.) 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, New No.111, Old No.59. Lb Chennai. / Vs. Road, Thiruvanmiyur,Chennai-600 041 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-2758-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Mrs. Swapna Nanu Ambath & Sh. V. Nanda Kumar Ld. Cit-Drs A/W Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr " थ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca) - Ld.Ar

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapna Nanu Ambath & Sh. V. Nanda

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 72

wherein the assessee has submitted that reopening is bad-in-law since the same amounts to change of opinion, there being no fresh tangible material coming to the possession of Ld. AO. 1.4 The Ld. CIT-DR advanced arguments supporting the assessment order whereas Ld. AR, while supporting impugned order

Chandrakant Gordhanbhai Patel HUF, Dabhoi vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(3), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 485/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: The Final Hearing Of This Appeal Petition…”

For Appellant: None(Written Submission filed by the assessee)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

income were disclosed and so without any tangible material before the AO to reopen assessment or In the absence of surfacing of any fresh tangible material, initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law. Reassessment made after four years without pointing out failure on my part

M/S Arvind Champaklal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4385/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 68

beneficiary of accommodation entry of INR 35,00,000/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer did not have any fresh tangible material for initiating re-assessment proceedings. In our view, the Assessing Officer had sufficient tangible material to form a belief that income had escaped 3 Assessment

DCIT CC 4 (4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, 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 3606/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

change of 5.6. The Next argument of the appellant is that there was a change of opinion and that there was no fresh tangible material. Having perused the opinion and that there was no fresh tangible material. Having perused the opinion and that there was no fresh tangible material. Having ... proceedings. In any case, a true and complete manner during the original proceedings. In any case, the AO has been in receipt of fresh tangible material from the Investigation the AO has been in receipt of fresh tangible material from the Investigation the AO has been in receipt of fresh

DCIT CC 4 (4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, 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 3605/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, 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 3603/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

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

ITA 3491/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

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

observing as under:- “5.6. The Next argument of the appellant is that there was a change of opinion and that there was no fresh tangible material. Having perused the paper book filed by the appellant, the appellant has not been able to adequately explain that the issue of goodwill ... satisfactorily explained in a true and complete manner during the original proceedings. In any case, the AO has been in receipt of fresh tangible material from the Investigation Wing. Hence, I am unable to uphold the view of the appellant that this tantamount to change of opinion. This view

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 3474/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

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