← All Phrases

“material facts necessary for assessment”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 147564 judgments

The decision most relied on for material facts necessary for assessment is Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (41 ITR 191), cited in 384 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on material facts necessary for assessment

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.

153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat v. ITO
296 ITR 90 · 2008 · High Court
171
citing judgments

A live link of third-party information can form the basis for reopening an assessment under Section 148, provided it contains material facts necessary for assessment. The Assessing Officer must demonstrate a "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, which can be satisfied by such information even if it pertains to other assessees or relates to accommodation entries.

Sound Casting (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
250 CTR 119 · 2012 · High Court
51
citing judgments

An assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the assessee failed to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment.

ACIT v. CEAT Ltd.
449 ITR 171 · 2022 · Supreme Court
44
citing judgments

Reopening of an assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is invalid if it is based on a mere change of opinion or borrowed satisfaction, or if the reasons recorded do not explicitly allege the assessee's failure to truly and fully disclose all material facts necessary for assessment.

CIT v. Foramer Finance
251 ITR 416 · 2001 · High Court
41
citing judgments

Reopening assessments is permissible after four years if there was an escapement of income due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment, even if the initial assessment involved a change of opinion.

Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT
348 ITR 469 · 2012 · High Court
41
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are valid when there is a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.

R 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd. v. DCIT
343 ITR 183 · 2012 · High Court
40
citing judgments

Reopening assessment beyond four years under Section 147 is permissible only if the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for assessment. Mere change of opinion is not a valid ground for reopening.

Judgments citing material facts necessary for assessment

S. Aravind, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

ITA 2584/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

said to have cannot be said to have failed to disclose truly and full failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment for that year and in that view of material facts necessary for assessment for that year and in that view of material facts necessary

Swati Energy & Projects (P) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Pradip N. Kapasi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234D

reasons which had been disclosed to the assessee that there was any failure on his part to fully and truly disclosed material facts necessary for assessment for relevant assessment year. Hence, the jurisdictional condition for reopening the assessment beyond a period of four years had not been fulfilled. Even during

Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 409/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.409/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Deputy Commissioner Limited Vs. Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-8(1) [Pan: Aaacd7999Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Ar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 07/04/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.06.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234C

omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return u/s 139 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, reopening of 5 Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited assessment is bad in law and cannot be held to be valid. The Assessing Officer ... contention of the assesse that there is no failure on the part of the assesse to fully and truly disclose the material facts necessary for assessment and held that even though the assesse had produced books of account, annual report and audited profit and loss account and balance sheet

Kumar Ramesh Sahu, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Rajkot, Gujarat

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

ITA 336/RJT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 54Section 68

that income had escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. In the present case, we have gone through the reasons submitted in support of the notice under s. 148 of the Income

Evonik Catalysts India P.Ltd, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1085/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2006-07 Evonik Catalysts India Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(2), (Erstwhile Monarch Catalyst Private Vs. Kalyan Limited), F1/2, Midc, Phase I, Dombivli (East), Thane-421203 Pan : Aaacm5013G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved (Virtually appeared) a/w Shri Abdul Kadir JawadwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Monica Pande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234D

contentions of the assessee that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 7 9. Since the AO had completed the earlier assessment u/s 143(3) and since the present reopening is done after expiry of four

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1470/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2006-07] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Circle-7(1), Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2007-08] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Circle-22(2), Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2008-09] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Add.Cit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Special Range-8, Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2025

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

account of the reason that there was no failure on the appellant's part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 1.3 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating that the alleged reasons to believe recorded are merely in the nature

India Luxco Retail Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ravi Sharma & Jaskaran SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

impugned assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment in the return of income. Thus, reopening of assessment beyond four years is invalid. He further submitted that in the reasons, there is no reference ... impugned assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment in the return of income. There is no allegation in the reasons for reopening either that any new tangible material has come into possession

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Andhra Pradesh Technology Development & Promotion Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ravi Sharma & Jaskaran SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

impugned assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment in the return of income. Thus, reopening of assessment beyond four years is invalid. He further submitted that in the reasons, there is no reference ... impugned assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment in the return of income. There is no allegation in the reasons for reopening either that any new tangible material has come into possession

Mahendra Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

cannot be said that there was any failure on the party of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all the material facts necessary for assessment. There is no finding of concealed income. The reopening is based on third party statement (No evidentiary value). 2. Assumption of Jurisdiction on Presumption ... assesse. It cannot be said that the there was any failure on the part of assesse to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment. There is no finding of concealed income. The reopening is based on third party statement which have No evidentiary value without providing

Pankaj Khanna Dy. CIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Tipsy Financial & Management Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 1425/DEL/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

Section 147Section 148

must satisfy himself and state that there has been failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment or another jurisdictional preconditions. In absence of failure or lapse to disclose fully and truly all material facts

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

ITA 7429/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153A

petitioner, there is no whisper, what to speak of any allegation, that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there has been an escapement of income chargeable to tax. Merely having a reason to believe that

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

ITA 7428/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153A

petitioner, there is no whisper, what to speak of any allegation, that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there has been an escapement of income chargeable to tax. Merely having a reason to believe that

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

ITA 7427/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153A

petitioner, there is no whisper, what to speak of any allegation, that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there has been an escapement of income chargeable to tax. Merely having a reason to believe that

Asha Viren Raj, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 809/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reasons which had been disclosed to the assessee that there was any failure on his part to fully and truly disclosed material facts necessary for assessment for relevant assessment year. Hence, the jurisdictional condition for reopening the assessment beyond a period of four years had not been fulfilled. Even during

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

ITA 1280/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Bagmar
Section 115Section 115J

relevant assessment year was as a result of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully, all material facts necessary for assessment. He submitted that from the recorded reasons itself, such satisfaction should have been discernible; and in this case, it is absent ... Therefore, according to the Ld.AR, the omission on the part of the AO to make such allegation that assessee failed to disclose material facts necessary for assessment vitiates the impugned reopening of assessment and therefore, is bad in law and prayed to quash it. 14. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted

Tcg Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 706/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69A

escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and income to the extent of Rs. 2,39,00,000/- as mentioned above has escaped assessment during the FY 2016-17 within the meaning

Graceunited Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-12(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2049/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, C.A. & Vaishali More, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

reasons which had been disclosed to the assessee that there was any failure on his part to fully and truly disclosed material facts necessary for assessment for relevant assessment year. Hence, the jurisdictional condition for reopening the assessment beyond a period of four years had not been fulfilled. Even during

Graceunited Developes Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12(2)(1), Mumba

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

ITA 2048/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, C.A. & Vaishali More, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

reasons which had been disclosed to the assessee that there was any failure on his part to fully and truly disclosed material facts necessary for assessment for relevant assessment year. Hence, the jurisdictional condition for reopening the assessment beyond a period of four years had not been fulfilled. Even during

Ram Swaroop Balai, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 250

queries raised by ADIT(C1) in consonance therewith but without alleging that it had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and because of its failure there had been an escapement of income chargeable to tax, re-opening of assessment after expiry of four years

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

first proviso to section 147, the AO had to establish failure on the part of appellant to disclose fully and truly all material fact necessary for assessment which is a pre-requisite for issue of notice u/s 148 Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur beyond 4 years ... find that the AO had failed to establish any failure on the part of appellant to disclose fully and truly all material fact necessary for assessment. It is seen that this fact was brought to the notice of the AO through objections filed during the reassessment proceedings, the AO vide