“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

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1634/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

ground that re-opening of assessment has been carried out on the basis of ‘change of opinion’ without there being any fresh tangible material which suggest escapement of income. The assessee had also challenged re-assessment on the ground that the assessment has been re-opened after a period ... opened, is illogical and devoid of merits. Further, the assessments have been re-opened for these two assessment years on the basis of fresh tangible material which suggest escapement of income on account of under assessment rental income and said escapement of income was noticed during the course of survey

Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1633/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

M/S. A V M Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1632/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

Pragati Power Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3583/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uspragati Power Corporation Ltd., Vs. Acit, Spl. Range 7, Himadari Rajghat Power House Office Complex, New Delhi. Rajghat, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan : Aaccp8035F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2024 Date Of Order : 18.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Full compliance was done to the notices and queries raised by AO during the course of original assessment proceedings; (iii) There is no fresh tangible material distinct from what was very much available at the time of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act; It is relevant to note ... failure on part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose the material facts of the case; and (iii) When there is no fresh tangible material distinct from what was very much available, the reopening in such circumstances is impermissible. 5 4. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue relied

M/S Ramani Timber Corporation, Trichy vs. ACIT-Circle-3(1), Trichy

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1476/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1476/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Ramani Timber Corporation Acit बनाम 3/132A. Tanjore Road, Opp.Udc Circle-3(1) / Vs. Kattur, Trichy-620 019. Trichy. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefr-9407-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 13-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 17-10-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 31-12-2018. This Is Second Round Of Litigation. Earlier, The Tribunal Vide Its Order In Ita No.125/Chny/2020 Dated 09-11-2021 Had Set Aside The Appeal To Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Consideration. Pursuant To The Same, Impugned Order

For Appellant: Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 68

disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Upon perusal of reasons recorded, it could also be seen that no fresh tangible material has come into the possession of Ld. AO to arrive at a conclusion that there was escapement of income. The formation of belief

Shanno Mohammed Yusuf Warsi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 1306/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Pankaj SoniFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 68Section 69C

No.1 relate to issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act without Ground No.1 relate to issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act without fresh tangible material, without independent application of mind and fresh tangible material, without independent application of mind and fresh tangible material, without independent application of mind

Vanpool Consulting and Advisory Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2068/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevanpool Consulting & Advisory Pvt., Ltd., V. Dcit – Cc – 1(2) 1501, Orient Height Room No. 906, Ninth Floor Rajaram Mohanrai Road Pratishtha Building, M.K. Road Grant Road (E), Mumbai - 400004 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacv2355C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.V. Desai Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Sai Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle - 19(3), Mumbai

ITA 3165/MUM/2023[20012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Mrugakshi K. JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Shreekala Pardeshi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

investigation since the aforesaid investigation report was not based solely upon such statement(s). We find that the Assessing Officer had sufficient fresh tangible material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. In any case, it is settled legal position that at the stage of initiation of reassessment

M/S. Panjos Builders Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/BANG/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 40Section 4o

proceedings are made on the issues which is already accepted and concluded in the scrutiny assessment, thus, the reassessment proceedings initiated without any fresh tangible material is invalid in the eyes of law on the facts and circumstances of the case. f) The order of reassessment passed

DCIT, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. East West Pipeline Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, without any adjudication upon the merits, Ground No. 5 to 8 to raised by the Revenue are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 1999/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 73(1)

failed to point out which disclosures made by the Assessee were not true or incomplete. (ii) Assessing Officer did not have any fresh tangible material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The reasons recorded itself state that on perusal of record the Assessing Officer formed a belief ... with Section 144B of the Act holding the reassessment proceedings were initiated on account of mere change of opinion in absence of any fresh tangible material. Further, there was no default on the part of the Assessee in making full the true disclosure, and therefore, the reassessment proceedings could

+DCIT CC- 7(2), Mumbai vs. Sahebrao Deshmukh Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed, while Ground No

ITA 2478/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: The Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

been claimed by the Assessee. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer did not have any fresh tangible material to initiate reassessment proceedings. The revenue audit objection did not point out any new fact and therefore, could not form the basis of initiating reassessment proceedings

Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 250/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

Ground No.3: Issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act is bad in law on account of borrowed satisfaction and in absence of fresh tangible material: "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO erred in issuing the notice u/s 148 without having valid reasons ... Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. believe of escapement of income, on the basis of change of opinion, on borrowed satisfaction and in absence of fresh tangible material, thereby the reassessment order u/s 147 is bad in law." Ground No.4: Issuance of notice is bad in law as it is without bringing

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 191/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 148

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 190/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 148

Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7861/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 153Section 80ISection 92C

erred in not appreciating that the reassessment proceedings initiated are bad in law in the absence of any fresh tangible material to satisfy income escaping assessment & ought to be quashed: 8. erred in not appreciating the fact that reassessment proceedings have been initiated only with a view to revive original

Nitin A. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, 19(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 667/MUM/2023[ 2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023

For Appellant: Shri Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Investing Wing that the Appellant had taken bogus accommodation entry in the nature of unsecured loan of INR 49,83,000/- and other fresh tangible material in possession of the 8 Assessing Officer. Copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment was furnished to the Appellant and the objections

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2334/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AdvaniFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

material found during a tax audit or with material found during examining a case of tax evasion. In fact the basis of fresh tangible material is unqualified i.e. the source of the material could be from any place, however, the only pre- condition is that on the basis

The Income Tax Officer Ward, 2, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Shri Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal, Jashpur (C.G.)

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 223/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 223/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer-2, Raigarh (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 41(4)Section 69

assessee had been reopened by the A.O merely on the basis of “change of opinion” and not on the basis of any fresh tangible material coming to his notice after the conclusion of the original assessment proceedings which would reveal any income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped

Shri Chetas Karamshi Nandu, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward-22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhchetas Karmshi Nandu Vs. Ito 22(1)(3) B/304, Jay Apartment, Room No. 314, 3 Rd Floor, Nehru Road, Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aijpn0030C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. Prakash Kishinchandani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act merely on the basis of change of opinion without being in possession of any fresh tangible material after completion of the first reassessment. P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2013-14 Shri. Chetas karamshi Nandu 2. In the facts and circumstances

ACIT(OSD), Ward-22(1), New Delhi vs. S.S. Gas Lab Asia P. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3246/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit(Osd), Vs. S. S. Gas Lab Asia P. Ltd, Ward-22(1), A-6/3, Jhilmil Industrial Area, New Delhi Shahdara, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakcs1928C Co No. 54/Del/2023 (In Ita No. 3246/Del/2019) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit(Osd), Vs. S. S. Gas Lab Asia P. Ltd, Ward-22(1), A-6/3, Jhilmil Industrial Area, New Delhi Shahdara, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakcs1928C Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Kumar Bindal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/10/2023 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, A. M.: 1. The Appeal In Ita No. 3246/Del/2019 Filed By The Revenue & Co No. 54/Del/2023 387/Del/2021 Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2008-09, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Cit(A)‟, In Short] In Appeal No. 10208/16-17 Dated 08.02.2019 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 09.03.2016 By The Assessing Officer, Ito, Ward-22(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disagreement; c) the notice u/s 148 was issued merely on change of opinion on the same set of facts without any fresh tangible material to show any escapement of income; and d) the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the case was reopened after more