← 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

Hsbc Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

ITA 7292/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)Section 40A(9)

Bombay High Court, being the jurisdictional High Court in our case, held that reopening without any fresh tangible material coming to the AO, is illegal. This, too, was the case where the AO had re-opened the assessment within 4 years from the end of the assessment year

Asst. CIT -Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rakhi Properties & Lesing P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 947/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleacit – Circle – 2(3)(1) V. M/S. Rakhi Properties & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., 61/62 Gaya Building, 4Th Floor, Y.M. Road Room No. 552, 5Th Floor Masjid Bunder, Mumbai - 400003 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccr8822L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Department by Shri T. Shankar
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 68

belong to Shri Shirish C Shah. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the notice u/s 148 could be issued on the basis of fresh tangible material, however Assessing Officer had issued the notice u/s 148 under an incorrect reason that the share applicants belong to Shri Shirish C Shah

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

initiated after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without surfacing of any fresh tangible material and merely on the basis of the assessment made in the case of Shri M.K. Ajatshatru Singh. He submitted that assessment made in the case of Shri

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

initiated after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without surfacing of any fresh tangible material and merely on the basis of the assessment made in the case of Shri M.K. Ajatshatru Singh. He submitted that assessment made in the case of Shri

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

initiated after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without surfacing of any fresh tangible material and merely on the basis of the assessment made in the case of Shri M.K. Ajatshatru Singh. He submitted that assessment made in the case of Shri

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

initiated after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without surfacing of any fresh tangible material and merely on the basis of the assessment made in the case of Shri M.K. Ajatshatru Singh. He submitted that assessment made in the case of Shri

Zanul Abiden Vahora, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 15 (1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1365/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar ()And Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Zanul Abiden Vahora, Ito, Wd-25(1)(5), Flat No. 7, Plot No. 156, Chandrakiran Vs. Room No. 611, C-12, Pratyaksh Society, Behind Tolani College, Shere Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Punjab Society, Andheri (East), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Ahtpv 0978 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

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, without independent application of mind on borrowed satisfaction and without having valid reason to believe of escapement of income; 3. On facts and circumstances

Saraswati Realtech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3269/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Saraswati Realtech P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, B-23, Ground Floor, Ward-22(3), Pushpanjali Enclave, New Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan: Aamcs0744G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Jain, Ca & Shri Hemant Pahwa, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment notice was identical with what the Revenue seeks to examine or re-examine again. It was held that in the absence of fresh tangible material, outside the existing record, the view of the Revenue is nothing, but, an impermissible review, in line with the three judges’ ruling

J.D. Sons Steel Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr.D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 68

income is processed under section 143(1), it is not necessary in such a case for Assessing Officer to come across some fresh tangible material to form 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment. 8 Krishna Developers And Co Vs DCIT (2018-TIOL-51- SC-IT) Where

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahyog Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 5025/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Vs. Sahyog Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Circle-22(1), C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F- New Delhi 26/124, Sector-7, Rohini New Delhi Pan: Aaics1124J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

assessee is 30/07/2009), are made as basis to mechanically reopen the case u/s 148 which reopening deserves to be quashed (without any fresh tangible material). 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the Ld CIT-A erred in sustaining reopening action ... thereafter regular assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that there is lack of fresh tangible material coming in to possession of ld AO after framing of the assessment order and, therefore, the re-opening by the AO is bad in law. He relied

Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

expiry of the relevant assessment year, the AO has to base his 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment on some fresh tangible material that provides the nexus or link to the formation of such belief. In a case where the initial return is processed under Section ... assessment no doubt requires the AO to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, but such reasons do not require any fresh tangible material . 35.7 In other words, where reopening is sought of an assessment in a situation where the initial return is processed under Section

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

expiry of the relevant assessment year, the AO has to base his 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment on some fresh tangible material that provides the nexus or link to the formation of such belief. In a case where the initial return is processed under Section ... assessment no doubt requires the AO to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, but such reasons do not require any fresh tangible material . 35.7 In other words, where reopening is sought of an assessment in a situation where the initial return is processed under Section

Shri Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

expiry of the relevant assessment year, the AO has to base his 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment on some fresh tangible material that provides the nexus or link to the formation of such belief. In a case where the initial return is processed under Section ... assessment no doubt requires the AO to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, but such reasons do not require any fresh tangible material . 35.7 In other words, where reopening is sought of an assessment in a situation where the initial return is processed under Section

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sg Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for the A

ITA 2334/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 153CSection 282B

under section 153C of the I.T. Act, Law does not permit to reopen an assessment which has already been quashed unless there is fresh tangible material was before A.O. to form a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the present case no such case is made ... once original assessment under section 153C have been quashed, Law does not permit the A.O. to reopen the same case unless there is fresh tangible material available before the A.O. to form a belief that some income has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sg Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for the A

ITA 2333/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 153CSection 282B

under section 153C of the I.T. Act, Law does not permit to reopen an assessment which has already been quashed unless there is fresh tangible material was before A.O. to form a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the present case no such case is made ... once original assessment under section 153C have been quashed, Law does not permit the A.O. to reopen the same case unless there is fresh tangible material available before the A.O. to form a belief that some income has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sg Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for the A

ITA 2332/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 153CSection 282B

under section 153C of the I.T. Act, Law does not permit to reopen an assessment which has already been quashed unless there is fresh tangible material was before A.O. to form a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the present case no such case is made ... once original assessment under section 153C have been quashed, Law does not permit the A.O. to reopen the same case unless there is fresh tangible material available before the A.O. to form a belief that some income has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sg Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for the A

ITA 2331/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 153CSection 282B

under section 153C of the I.T. Act, Law does not permit to reopen an assessment which has already been quashed unless there is fresh tangible material was before A.O. to form a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the present case no such case is made ... once original assessment under section 153C have been quashed, Law does not permit the A.O. to reopen the same case unless there is fresh tangible material available before the A.O. to form a belief that some income has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 3768/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)Section 148

support his arguments. He further submitted: (i) that in view of the following decisions, in absence of any fresh tangible material, the Assessing Officer is excluded from reopening the assessment even within four years from the end of the assessment year merely on the ‘change of the opinion