← All Phrases

“third party information”

Search & SeizureSection 133(6)Section 133(6)322 judgments

The decision most relied on for third party information is Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (281 CTR 241), cited in 1,335 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on third party information

Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE
281 CTR 241 · 2015 · Supreme Court
1,335
citing judgments

An assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements are relied upon for adverse findings. Failure to provide this opportunity is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity.

PCIT v. Krishna Devi
126 Taxmann.com 80 · 2021 · High Court
249
citing judgments

The genuineness of share transactions, particularly those generating long-term capital gains, cannot be rejected solely based on general investigation reports, third-party statements, or a mere increase in share price, when the assessee provides comprehensive documentary evidence, without the Revenue bringing substantial evidence to the contrary.

CIT v. Eastern Commercial Enterprises
210 ITR 103 · 1994 · High Court
205
citing judgments

If the Assessing Officer relies on adverse evidence or witness testimony, including statements recorded under Section 132(4), the assessee must be provided an opportunity to cross-examine the witness or source of the evidence, upholding principles of natural justice. An assessment made without such an opportunity may be considered invalid.

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.

Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
73 Taxmann.com 185 · 2016 · High Court
137
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is justified in initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on specific, tangible information received, even if an assessment under Section 143(1) or 143(3) was previously done. At the initial stage, "reason to believe" only requires relevant material to form a reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment, not established proof of escapement.

Chandigarh), S.P Goyal v. DCIT
74 ITD 298 · 2000 · ITAT
122
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot make additions to income based solely on loose papers, scribbled figures, or entries in seized material without independent corroborative evidence, proof of actual money transfer, or statements from concerned parties. Suspicion, however strong, is not a sufficient basis for additions under income tax law.

RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra), Marcel Martins Vs. M. Printer & Ors.
5 SCC 342 · 2009 · Reported
102
citing judgments

The case clarifies the concept of a "fiduciary relationship," emphasizing its foundation in trust, confidence, integrity, and the obligation to act primarily for the benefit of another. It also notes the fiduciary's duty to act in confidence and not disclose information to third parties.

2 CIT v. Indrajit Singh Suri
33 Taxmann.com 281 · 2013 · High Court
100
citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147/148 against legal representatives of a deceased assessee requires a demonstrable 'reason to believe' that income escaped assessment, often based on third-party information such as alleged accommodation entries.

Judgments citing third party information

Income Tax Officer, Bkc Mumbai vs. Mukeshkumar Jain, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4664/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer Mukeshkumar Jain Room No 854B, Kautilya B/703, Plot No 46-47, Bhavan, Bkc 400051 Mumbai, Mamta Apartment, Lt Vs. Mumbai Nagar, Road No. 3, Mg Road, Goregaon West 400062, Mumbai- Mumbai Pan: Afkpj4536K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri. Tejas Sodha Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 26.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Had Declared His Total Income Of Rs. 12,48,190/- By Filing Return Of Income For The Ay Under Consideration On Dated 23.12.2017. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ld.Ao’) On The Basis Of Information Received From The Dcit, Central Circle 7(2), Mumbai To The Effect That The Assessee Was A Beneficiary Of The Accommodation Entry Of Rs.

For Appellant: Shri. Tejas SodhaFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250

income of Rs. 40-80 lac regularly in each year over a period of time. Further the assessing officer simply relied on the third party information without giving any specific corroborative material and proceeded in infer that the assessee has shown bogus loan. Therefore, addition made