“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

M/S. Nitesh Estates Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1486/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

been formed otherwise. 13. We also do not find any allegation by Ld.AO that, assessee has not fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment. At this juncture, we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indian oil Corporation vs ITO reported ... show that there was escapement of income due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of income of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10. Under the circumstances, the conditions stipulated under first proviso to section

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

ITA 1580/MUM/2020[UNION BANK OF INDIA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)

tangible information which established that there was failure on the part of assessee to make true and full disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment. Once reopening was done on a valid ground, other issues which show underassessment or escapement of income could also be considered

ITO Ward 2 (3), Thane vs. Shri. Chandrashekhar Nathalal Trivedi, Mira Road

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7432/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi Income Tax Officer, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ward 2(5), Thane Room No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. East, Thane-401107 Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16- Z, Thane(W)-400604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapt3199H Income Tax Officer, 2(5), Room Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. Estate, Road No.16-Z, East, Thane-401107 Thane(W)-400604

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Assessing Officer recorded the reason that due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and hence notice under section 148 of the Act is initiated. Such reasons were recorded purportedly within time and approval was obtained

Chandrashekhar Nathalal Trivedi, Mira Road vs. ITO Ward 2 (5), Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 6605/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Gm Overseas, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-48(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1891/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

Tech Mahindra Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6573/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 6573/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) Tech Mahindra Limited, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacm-3484-F ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit, Cir. 2(3)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistri, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Damor सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: 6573/Mum/2019 This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Mumbai [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 04/09/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri J.D.Mistri, Sr.Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That The Assessee Has Raised Additional Grounds Of 2 Appeal Assailing Jurisdiction Assumed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short 'The Act') & Validity Of The Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act. At This Stage He Would Be Confirning His Submissions On The Additional Grounds Raised.

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor

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

Rs.8815483.20 chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for A.Y, 2012-13 within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax, 1961. The assessment

Indian Clothing League(P) Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Ward-26(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 505/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Indian Clothing League (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, Rupinder Kumar Aggarwal, Ward-26(2), Advocate, B-1A/22H, New Delhi. Sector-51, Noida. Pan: Aaccv3439R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2022 Order

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

failed to appreciate that even otherwise there was no failure on the part of 7 assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and as such action u/s 147 was in excess of jurisdiction; 3.5 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed

DCIT 1 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 14/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194JSection 194J(1)Section 40

whole do not indicate even remotely any failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly any material facts necessary for assessment. The only reason recorded in this case by the AO for reopening is that certain payments have been made through the TPA to various hospitals ... High Court of Bombay as under: "The words 'failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment' is not a magician's mantra which alone would give jurisdiction to reopen an assessment. Just as it would not be open

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed quashing reopening of assessment and deleting addition on the merits

ITA 7432/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Standard Chartered Bank The Dy. Director Of Income- Crescenzo, Tax(International Taxation)- 7Th Floor, C38-39, 2(1), Vs. G Block Bandra Kurla Complex , 1St Floor, Scindia House, Bandra East N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 038 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcs4681D Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 2(47)Section 45Section 50Section 50C

reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all-material facts necessary for assessment in the above case within the meaning u/s 147 of the income tax Standard Chartered Bank; AY 2005-06 act. Accordingly, notice

Inderjeet Kohli, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-38(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6963/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi

Section 147Section 148Section 22

condition is to be satisfied viz: there must be failure on the part of the Assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. 15. In the present case, notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued on 29.03.2018 in relation to A.Y. 2011-12. Hence ... escaped the assessment for a reason of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 16. It is a settled law that the reasons which are recorded by the Assessing officer for reopening an assessment are the only reasons which

Krishna Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 38(3), New Delhi

ITA 6356/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

concluded “The same has escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose all material facts necessary for assessment for the AY 2009-10. In order to verify the genuineness, identification and 33 Krishan Devi creditworthiness of the aforesaid transaction the case

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. South Delhi Promoters Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 6402/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

failed to appreciate that even otherwise there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and as such action u/s 147 was in excess of jurisdiction; I 3 —do— That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed ... mention by the Assessing Officer that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment. In our understanding of law, this is the pre-requisite condition for reopening the assessment after the expiry of four years from

Sastvijay Investment & Consultancy Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 901/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

that the income pertaining to….has escaped assessment on account of failure on……….of the assessee to truly and fully disclose all material facts necessary for assessment for the AY 2009-10. In order to verify the genuineness, identification and creditworthiness of the aforesaid transaction the case needs

M/S Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 6022/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri KVSR. Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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 19 ITA.No ... took the specific plea that in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the 22 ITA.No.6022/Del./2016 M/s. Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd., New Delhi. notice under section

Smt. Geeta Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for these two years also

ITA 532/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reasons to believe that by reason of omission or failure" on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment, income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- has escaped assessment for which notice u/s 148 is required to be issued

Smt. Geeta Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for these two years also

ITA 531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Smt. Geeta Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for these two years also

ITA 474/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharaji Education Trust, Ghaziabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]–

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

reasons we find that there is no mention of the respondent-assessee not having made a full and true disclosure of the material facts necessary for assessment.” ii. CIT Vs. DCM Ltd.,(2009) 24 DTR 72 (Del.), iii. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing

Rajesh Kumar Verma, Bhiwani vs. ITO Ward -2, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3286/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 44ASection 80C

recording reasons that income escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclosure fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The competent authority had not applied his mind before (ii) recording satisfaction for approval not in accordance with law ignoring the judgment

Interglobal Steels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 148/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rocktim Saikia, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

period of 4 years in cases where an original assessment was made u/s 143(3), further requirement is the non-disclosure of material facts necessary for assessment by the assessee. However, in cases where no scrutiny assessment has been made even beyond period of 4 years the only requirement