“true and full disclosure”

Settlement & AmnestySection 245CSection 245C198 judgments

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

Leading authorities on true and full 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 true and full disclosure

DCIT Central Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

ITA 496/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Indiabulls Housing Finance Tax, Limited Central Circle–6(4) M–62 & 63, Room No.1925, 19Th Floor, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, Vs. Air India Building, New Delhi 110 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci2612A Assessee By : Mr. Om Kandalkar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2022

For Appellant: Mr. Om Kandalkar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

High Court by the revenue, in Writ Petition No. 330 of 2020, as these 16 entities of the Indiabulls Group had not made true and full disclosure before the Hon'ble Commission?" 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

Hsbc Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

ITA 7292/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)Section 40A(9)

return of income filed for the captioned AY, a presumption can be raised that such an order based on return filed with true and full disclosure of the facts has been passed on application of mind by the concerned AO. The AO has no power to review his own order

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)

clear case of receipt of 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

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 270/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

fide one or was based on vague, irrelevant and non- specific information." 6.3.7 Further, every disclosure is not and cannot be treated as true and full disclosure where transaction itself, on the basis of subsequent information, is found out to be a bogus transaction. Under similar circumstances ... likely that during the assessment proceedings the assessee may be able to satisfy the Assessing Officer that there was a true and full disclosure. Once the Assessing Officer has received information that invoices issued by A/1/s. Rahul Industries are bogus then the same is necessarily to be the subject matter

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 269/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 268/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 267/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

Dy CIT-CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 798/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 797/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) आअसं. 798/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 799/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Limited, Marathon Futurex Mafatlal Mill Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacp-8032-E ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.P. Bairagra With Ms. Rupa Nanda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’], For The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 147Section 148

Dy CIT, CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 797/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 147Section 148

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

reasons, which he must; record, to believe that, by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of all material facts necessary for his assessment during the concluded assessment proceedings, any part of his income, profits or gains chargeable

Lakhmi Chand Tejoo Mal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8094/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri E.V. Bhaskar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

relation to any assets (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India: N.A. 8. Findings of the AO on true and full disclosure of the material facts necessary for assessment under proviso to section 147 . The material available and the information received in this case shows that the assessee

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S Sucon India Ltd, Faridabad

ITA 4418/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. H.K.Choudhary, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &

Section 14ASection 2Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 73

these transactions can-not be the sole reason to levy penalty in view of the complexity of the issues involved, and the true and full disclosures made by it in the financial statements and during the course of assessment proceeding. In view of the above discussion, and very humbly following

Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Rites Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 680/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CA and Shri ShriFor Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 37(1)

that the Tribunal was perfectly correct in coming to invalid. From the reasons we gather that there was no element of lack of true and full disclosure on the part of the assessee, which resulted into any income chargeable to tax escaping assessment. The reasons clearly reveal that the Assessing ... principle will apply mutatis mutandis on the present ‘reasons’ also, because here in this case there is no element of law of true and full disclosure on the part of the assessee and the reasons of the assessment order was based on the material which was already on record. Thus

Rites Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 7, New Delhi

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

ITA 59/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CA and Shri ShriFor Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 37(1)

DCIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi vs. Paveljeet Singh Ruppal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1449/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Goel, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

conclusion that the notice of reopening of assessment was invalid. From the reasons we gather that there was no element of lack of true and full disclosure on the part of the assessee, which resulted into any income chargeable to tax escaping assessment. The reasons clearly 14 reveal that ... principle will apply mutatis mutandis on the present ‘reasons’ also, because here in this case there is no element of lack of true and full disclosure on the part of the assessee and the reasons are based on the material which was already on record. Thus, such a reason cannot

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 3768/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)Section 148

reasons, which he must record, to believe that, by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of all material facts necessary for his assessment during the 36 concluded assessment proceedings, any part of his income, profits or gains chargeable ... reassessment within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is valid even if there is a true and full disclosure of material facts by the assessee in the original assessment proceeding. The learned counsel, however, of the view that even after amendment to section 147 w.e.f

M/S Central India Electric Supply Co.Ltd vs. ITO-Company Circle X & Ors

The appeal is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own

ITA - 17 / 1999HC Delhi28 Jan 2011

Bench: Us In The Present Appeal, Are: “(1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Was Justified In Holding That Re-Assessment Proceedings Under Section 147(A) Read With Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Had Been Rightly Initiated Against The Assessee?

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 54

necessary for assessment of 2011:DHC:510-DB that year. The duty of the assessee was held not to extend beyond making a true and full disclosure of primary facts. Once he has done that, his duty ends and it is for the ITO to draw correct inference from

Central Warehousing Corporaiton vs. ACIT

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid

ITA - 464 / 2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011

Section 10Section 11BSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 3

reasons, which he must record, to believe that, by reason of omission or failure on the part of the Assesses to make a true and full disclosure of all material facts necessary for his assessment during the concluded assessment proceedings, any part of his income, profits or gains chargeable