“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Moradabad vs. Swati Menthol and Allied Chemicals Limited, Rampur

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

ITA 5090/DEL/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 68

invalid as:- i) it is beyond 4 years there is no failure on the part of the assessee, ii) there is no fresh tangible material which has come to the knowledge of the AO or CIT(A), iii) it is only a review of the original assessment already completed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary vs. M/S Virgo Properties Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1181/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

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

considerate opinion that it is a settled position that reassessment under sec.147 is only permissible if there is some fresh tangible material and not merely a change in the assessing officer's opinion on the same facts. The Doctrine of change of opinion refers to the situation where the assessing ... considerate opinion that it is a settled position that reassessment under sec.147 is only permissible if there is some fresh tangible material and not merely a change in the assessing officer's opinion on the same facts. The Doctrine of Change of Opinion refers to the situation where the assessing

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Year Objection No

ITA 2834/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Faroog IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessee on a number of judicial precedents. However, none of the judicial precedents would apply to the facts of the present case, since fresh tangible material in the form of the aforesaid statements of the employees of the Assessee-Company recorded by after the completion of the assessment was available ... reason to believe that income assessable to tax had escaped assessment. We note that Section 147 does not refer to the requirement of fresh tangible material. The requirement of existence of fresh tangible material and its link with formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has been read into

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessee on a number of judicial precedents. However, none of the judicial precedents would apply to the facts of the present case, since fresh tangible material in the form of the aforesaid statements of the employees of the Assessee-Company recorded by after the completion of the assessment was available ... believe that income assessable to tax had escaped assessment. 57. We note that Section 147 does not refer to the requirement of fresh tangible material. The requirement of existence of fresh tangible material and its link with formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has been read into Section

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2823/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessee on a number of judicial precedents. However, none of the judicial precedents would apply to the facts of the present case, since fresh tangible material in the form of the aforesaid statements of the employees of the Assessee-Company recorded by after the completion of the assessment was available ... believe that income assessable to tax had escaped assessment. 57. We note that Section 147 does not refer to the requirement of fresh tangible material. The requirement of existence of fresh tangible material and its link with formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has been read into Section

The New India Assurance Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessee on a number of judicial precedents. However, none of the judicial precedents would apply to the facts of the present case, since fresh tangible material in the form of the aforesaid statements of the employees of the Assessee-Company recorded by after the completion of the assessment was available ... believe that income assessable to tax had escaped assessment. 57. We note that Section 147 does not refer to the requirement of fresh tangible material. The requirement of existence of fresh tangible material and its link with formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has been read into Section

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

Year Objection No

ITA 2620/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Faroog IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2616/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessee on a number of judicial precedents. However, none of the judicial precedents would apply to the facts of the present case, since fresh tangible material in the form of the aforesaid statements of the employees of the Assessee-Company recorded by after the completion of the assessment was available ... believe that income assessable to tax had escaped assessment. 57. We note that Section 147 does not refer to the requirement of fresh tangible material. The requirement of existence of fresh tangible material and its link with formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has been read into Section

Ramasamy Kandasamy, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2023/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2023/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Ramasamy Kandasamy, The Ito, No.4/76, Sf No.927, Sukkaliyur, Ward-1, Karur-639 003. Karur. [Pan: Ajgpk 4945 H]

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth KumarFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151

same and proceed to hear the assessee’s appeal on merits. 3. The assessee has raised a legal issue that AO had no fresh tangible material for reopening of the case. 4. The ld.CIT(A)’s has decided the legal issue against the assessee and held as under ... approval of the reasons recorded by the AO, on the basis of confidentiality. 4.5. The appellant has contended that the AO had no fresh tangible material for reopening of the case. Though there was time to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the assessment year 2012-13 the Assessing Officer

Vedanta Ltd (Earlier Known As Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd.), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ravi Sharma & Jaskaran SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd., 215 Taxman 28 (Delhi) held that in the absence of any fresh tangible material, the re- opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act is without jurisdiction. 7. In the instant case, the reasons for reopening states that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 805/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 805/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit M/S Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited Panchkula Circle बनाम/ Vs. Nh 73, Village Kot Extension-Ii, Sector 14, Panchkula. Panchkula. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeck-2405-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By The Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2018. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By Deletion Of Twin Quantum Additions Of Rs.40.85 Lacs & Rs.707.75 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao In The Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)-Ld. AR

Section 131oSection 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 68o

reasons was solely derived on suspicion formed merely on the basis of information as available with the department without there being any fresh tangible material. The Ld. AO, while recording the reasons, failed to authenticate the correctness of the information and resulted in recording of wrong reasons ... details of Balance Sheetwere already placed which contained details of purchase of fixed assets and sources thereof. No fresh tangible material was brought on record by Ld. AO while recording reasons. The Ld. AO, though formed belief of escapement of income for Rs.819.57 Lacs whereas the assessee duly disclosed block

Monotech Systems Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1021/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. J. Prabhakar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T

Section 147Section 234BSection 36Section 37(1)Section 45

year amounting to Rs.4,34,44,057/- in the original assessment order completed u/s.143(3) dated 28.11.2019. Accordingly, in the absence of any fresh tangible material, the AO lacked the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment u/s.147 of the Act, and in doing so would effectively tantamount to a review

Addl.CIT, New Delhi vs. Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5384/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं. 5384 & 5385/िद"ी/2017(िन.व. 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Shri Somil AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 40

facts. The reassessment proceedings have been initiated in violation of first proviso to section 147 of the Act. He further submitted that no fresh tangible material was available before the AO to reopen the assessment either. He pointed that in the reasons recorded for reopening, the AO has recorded

Hitesh Kumar Prithviraj Kawad, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non-Corporten Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)Section 54F

Officer did not make any disallowance in respect of the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act. Accordingly, in the absence of any fresh tangible material, the AO lacked the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment u/s.147 of the Act, and in doing so would :-9-: ITA. No:352 /Chny/2024 effectively

R S Construction, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4918/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without satisfying the mandatory jurisdictional conditions and without bringing on record any fresh tangible material directly pertaining to the appellant. 2. Invalid Reliance on Third-Party Search The reassessment proceedings are based solely on alleged information gathered during search

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 497/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer could not have reopened the assessment under the provisions of section 147 in absence of any fresh tangible material. 37. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. UoI reported ... scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), notice for reopening under section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. 38. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainam Investments vs. ACIT reported

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1565/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1555/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Respondent: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Justin Tradelink Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1293/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

invalid and void ab initio due to the absence of link between the basis for forming reason to believe and fresh tangible material. 10. That the addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- arbitrarily made by ITO Ward-9(3), Kolkata as undisclosed income in the total income of the appellant

Jain Textile Industries, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed as devoid of

ITA 932/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Jain Textile Industries, V Assistant Commissioner Of 38, Milestone, Behrampur S Income Tax, Circle-1(1) Road, Village Khandsa, Hsiiddc Building, 4Th Floor, Gurgaon, Haryana Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon Pan: Aabfj8405F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Bhupender Jit Kumar, Adv, Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Adv & Sh. Tushar Kalra, Adv Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

specific request made by the Appellant, the AO did not provide the copy of actual reasons nor provided the copy of any fresh tangible material forming basis of formation of belief that income had escaped assessment. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... assessment in the case of the Appellant was earlier completed on 30.09.2016 under section 143(3) of the Act and there was no fresh tangible material that came up after the completion of original assessment. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case