“full and true disclosure”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 147449 judgments

The decision most relied on for full and true disclosure is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1), cited in 439 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on full and true disclosure

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.

Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO

203 ITR 456 · 1993 · Supreme Court

396

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are valid even after a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), provided the Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe, based on definite, specific, and reliable information, that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to fully and truly disclose material facts.

Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO

41 ITR 191 · 1961 · Supreme Court

384

citing judgments

The assessee's duty is limited to disclosing all primary, material facts necessary for assessment, including entries, documents, and other evidence. It is for the Assessing Officer to draw inferences of fact and law, and the assessee is not obligated to offer such inferences.

CIT v. Foramer France

264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court

253

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT

308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court

248

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

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.

New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DCIT

116 Taxmann.com 151 · 2020 · Supreme Court

139

citing judgments

Reassessment initiated under Section 147/148 is invalid if the Assessing Officer relies on material obtained post-recording of reasons, or if it amounts to a mere change of opinion on facts fully and truly disclosed by the assessee during the original assessment. An assessee's obligation extends only to the full and true disclosure of primary facts, not to provide further assistance or inferences.

Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT

398 ITR 198 · 2017 · High Court

137

citing judgments

Sanction under Section 151 granted in a mechanical manner, without application of mind, vitiates reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148. The court also laid down guidelines for the Revenue to follow when reopening assessments, emphasizing the need to provide reasons and approval documentation to the assessee.

Judgments citing full and true disclosure

Shri Amit Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT, - 33(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3331/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 3331 & 3332/Mum/2019 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Amit Mangilal Jain Vs. Acit – 33(1) 2Nd Floor, Arkade House, 103, 1St Floor, Atmaram Sawnt Marg, Eastern House, Kandivali (E), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400101. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabpj0925G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar.DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

undisclosed income of Shri Amit Mangilal Jain. As such, it is also failure on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of these material facts in the relevant assessment year, as far as the above issue is concerned. Therefore, I have a reason to believe that

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 503/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

Apart from the fact that there has been no failure on the part of the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts, it will be necessary to advert to the decision of the Supreme Court in Harshad Shantilal Mehta v. Custodian the Supreme Court

Basant Dharmichand Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 263

indicating in the reasons as to whether there was any failure on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of facts that are material for the purpose of assessment. Hence, the reopening proceedings deserve to be quashed on this count also. Reliance in this 7 Shri

Mehul Gems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the different assessees are allowed in terms as indicated above

ITA 384/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 251(2)

Income Tax Act, 1961, which is attributable to failure on the part of 9 I.T.A. No. 384 & 387/Mum/2022 the Assessee to make full and true disclosure in the Return of Income. In view of the above facts and various evidences garnered during the course of assessment proceedings as discussed above

M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7933/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR

Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

reassessment is beyond 4 years, no material has been brought on record to show failure on part of the assessee for ‘full and true’ disclosure. 013. Assessee also challenged the disallowance of ₹86,05,000/- with respect to R & D expenditure. The assessee submitted that the learned Assessing Officer should ... Assessing Officer can go through the reasons from the very same record and there is no change of opinion. With respect to the full and true disclosure also, he held that not every disclosure to be treated as true and full. He further held that there is a prima facie

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7742/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR

Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7582/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR

Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

DCIT Cent Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Manoj Kumar Babulal Punamiya, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1550/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Us Is Less Than The Monetary Limit Prescribed By Cbdt For Enabling Revenue To Prefer Appeal Before This Tribunal. This Was Vehemently Objected By The Ld. Dr By Stating That The Case Falls Under The Exception To The Said Cbdt Circular On Low Tax Effect, As In The Instant Case, The Case Was Reopened Based On Audit Objection Which Was Accepted By The Revenue. In Support Of This, The Ld. Dr Placed On Record The Copy Of The Audit Objection, Which Has Been Accepted By The Department. We Have Verified The Same & Are In Concurrence With The Argument Advanced By The Ld. Dr. Accordingly, This Is Not A Fit Case To Be Dismissed On The Ground Of Low Tax Effect. Hence The Parties Were Allowed To Represent The Issues Ground Wise.

Section 143(3)Section 147

would come into operation, wherein the ld. AO had to establish the failure on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of income in the original assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) observed that all the details were duly disclosed by the assessee in the return ... under the column Schedule ‘CFL’ and hence there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of particulars of income. Based on these observations, the ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment as void abinitio. This is challenged by the revenue before

Swastik Technopack Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1521/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalswastik Technopack Pvt. Ltd. A 1, Pankaj Building, Symphony It Park, Near Megarugus Hall, Chandivali, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 Pan: Aaics9255L ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Aditya Ramchandran Respondent By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. DR

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act for the said addition. In response, the assessee submitted that it had full and true disclosure of all the facts pertaining to the said claim of deduction by furnishing all the requisite documents in support of its claim

Ghanshyam Vashishta, Surat vs. ACIT CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different assessees are allowed in terms as indicated above

ITA 341/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am

Section 143(3)

meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is attributable to failure on the part of the Assessee to make full and true disclosure in the Return of Income. In view of the above facts and various evidences garnered during the course of assessment proceedings as discussed

Hitesh Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6418/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Vinay Sinha

Section 54F

11 Appeals Shri Hitesh Chhatwal Vs. DCIT, CC-5(4) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1910/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

bogus purchases of Rs 129.06 crores for the years relevant to AYS 2007- 08 to 2013-14 on the ground of non full and true disclosure after considering the findings of the search action, the discrepancies noted in the supporting evidences submitted before them in respect of the purchases/expenses from