“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

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

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

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

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

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

Indu Mahendra Shah (L/H of Late Shri Mahendra G. Shah), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-20(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 856/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69C

also do not allege that there was any failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly 9 all material facts necessary for assessment. Thus, in our view, there is clearly no application of mind by the Assessing Officer while recording reasons for reopening assessment

Shri. Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1133/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep & Ms. Girija G.P, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Ramanathan, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

years and it was not a case where there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the material facts necessary for assessment, the Tribunal held as under: 12.1 Moving forward, it is also pertinent to note that in case where the regular assessment under section ... assessment year can only be made if there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the materials facts necessary for assessment. In the case on hand, the reopening was made after the expiry of 4 year, however the AO nowhere has brought on record that

Krishna Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4292/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd. 508, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023. Pan: Aabck-5678-G ---- Appellant Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 10(1)(2), Mumbai Room No.651, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. --- Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

mandatory for the AO to show that there was failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Further, the said allegation should be explicitly mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. However, the AO has not recorded ... demonstrate that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 11. We notice that, in the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of assessment, he did not mention that there was a failure on the part

Tulshi Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, WD-11(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 776/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

assessment year 2009-10 due to omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and thus the case needs to be reopened as the information received by this office needs deep verification. The Hon’ble Court has held

Rajesh Goyal, New Delhi vs. DCIT CC-14, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and as a consequential effect, impugned assessment is quashed

ITA 331/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Rajesh Goyal Vs. Dcit Ff, Plot No.32, Road No.43, Cc-14 West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aalpg2490F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/05/2024

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

beyond four years for which it is necessary to have conclusion drawn that assessee has not fully or truly disclosed the material facts necessary for assessment leading to escapement of income. In this context the AO by observing that assessee has not fully and truly disclosed material facts, has observed

Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3176/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. M. G. Joseph Gangte, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

that the income has escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. Since, four years have expired from

Vibha Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 69(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 760/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

factual matrix, statutory provisions and legal principles, the undersigned has reasons to believe that the Assessee has not disclosed fully and truly material facts necessary for assessment and there has been an escapement to tune of Rs. 746,487/- chargeable to tax for the A.Y. 2011-12 and hence

M/S. Saroj Embrods Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1352/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessment year 2009-10 due to omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and thus the case needs to be 7 I.T.A. Nos.1351 & 1352/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Saroj Embrods Pvt. Ltd. reopened

Saroj Embrods Private Limited., Hooghly vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1351/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Income Tax Office -34(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Prime Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4246/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41Section 41(1)

prime condition is that there has to be failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Unless that failure is not established, the reopening cannot be done. 9. Apart from that, there has to be some tangible material and information

M/S Prime Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -25(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4152/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41Section 41(1)

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2116/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand**

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

facts necessary for his assessment for that year. The Relevant part for us to consider is "to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment". **7.** The assessment proceedings start when the Assessing Officer raises queries after considering the return of income and the financial statements

V.K.Nanavaty Share and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2614/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2614/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) V. K. Nanavaty Share & बिधम/ Ito, Ward-4(2)(4) R. No. 647, 6Th Floor, Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd Vs. R-709, Rotunda Building, Aaykar Bhavan, Bombay Stock Exchange, Maharishi Karve Road, M. S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai- Churchgate, Mumbai- 400023. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv9670N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue By: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 30.05.2023 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First.

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment because of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment which must not be fanciful or based on suspicion. Both the conditions must co-exist in order to confer jurisdiction on the Assessing

G.S. Dream Home LLP, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 24/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 69A

notice issued without specifying that there is failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that AY is illegal & bad in law:- Durr India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2023) 231 DTR 416 (Madras) (HC) To invoke the extended period ... reassessment, the reasons furnished for reassessment ought to contain a finding that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. In the present case, though admittedly the power to reassess has been exercised by invoking the extended period of limitation in terms

ACIT, Cent Circle-1, Trichy vs. M/S Mangal & Mangal, Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 511/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 511/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal & Mangal, Income Tax, V. 25, N.S.B. Road, Teppakulam, Central Circle -2, Trichy – 620 002. No. 44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaifm-3378-B] Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. Nlay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

first proviso to Sec.147 since there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 in the earlier assessment proceedings. 2.2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment was reopened ... assessing officer in reasons for reopening of assessment, which established that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and income has escaped assessment. 2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting the assessee's claim that it has furl5l° all evidences relating

Anavya Investments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4828/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Anavya Investments Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sanjay & Sanjay, A-1-A, 14B, Ward-2(4), Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aahc4820A Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Garg, Ca Shri Akarsh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Directorate of Income Tax (IC&I), Mumbai, I am satisfied that the assessee company has failed to disclose fully & truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Therefore, after consideration the information received and facts case, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax to the tune ... company i.e. M/s …………………………..(line missing) mentioned above and I am satisfied that the assessee company has failed to disclose fully & truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Therefore, after consideration the information received and facts case, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax to the tune

Blue Coast Infrastructure Development P.Ltd, Solan vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

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

ITA 2984/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

whisper that the income has escaped due to the failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, as the same has been reopened after a period of four years from the-end of relevant assessment year and the assessment has already

Balaji Buillion & Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3599/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Balaji Bullion & Dcit Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadcb 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee By Revenue By : Mr. S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr : 27/03/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024

For Respondent: Mr. N.M. Porwal

Section 234BSection 68

fully and truly all failure on the part of assessee company to disclose fully and truly all the material facts nec the material facts necessary for assessment and reopening of essary for assessment and reopening of assessment after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment after

M/S 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 1638/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

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)

thus, unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessments, the assessment cannot be re-opened. The assessee had also challenged denial of exemption u/s.11 of the Act, in light of decision of the ITAT ... relevant assessment years without any allegation of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Therefore, he submitted that the re-opening of assessments for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 should be quashed. 12. The Ld.DR, Shri V. Nandakumar

M/S 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 1637/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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)