“investigation wing”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 14712,584 judgments

The decision most relied on for investigation wing is PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (396 ITR 5), cited in 272 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on investigation wing

PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.

396 ITR 5 · 2017 · High Court

272

citing judgments

Reassessment based solely on information from the Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer conducting further inquiry or demonstrating an independent application of mind, is unjustified and invalid.

109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. v. DCIT

293 ITR 43 · 2007 · High Court

264

citing judgments

Where an assessment order is merely a copy-paste of observations from an investigation wing's appraisal report without independent verification, it is not a valid basis for making additions to income.

Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

329 ITR 110 · 2010 · High Court

217

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the Assessing Officer records satisfaction based on borrowed satisfaction or information without independently applying their mind and forming their own 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. The AO must arrive at an independent conclusion, not merely act on a report from an investigation wing without due diligence.

ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani

69 Taxmann.com 65 · 2016 · Reported

142

citing judgments

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

1. Harikishan S. Virmani v. DCIT

394 ITR 146 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under section 147 cannot be initiated by the Assessing Officer based on borrowed satisfaction, vague information from the Investigation Wing, or incorrect jurisdictional facts without independent application of mind. Reopening beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, especially where an original assessment was completed under section 143(3), requires specific conditions relating to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.

ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur

224 ITR 362 · 1997 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Information received from the investigation wing constitutes valid 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, provided the Assessing Officer applies their mind to the material and does not act mechanically. Prompt issuance of a notice based on such information does not automatically imply a lack of due diligence or borrowed satisfaction.

AGR Investment v. Additional Commissioner

197 Taxmann 177 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

A reassessment under Section 147/148 is valid if initiated based on specific, non-vague information, even from an investigation wing, provided the Assessing Officer applies independent mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment.

56 (Guj.) (para 6) v. Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

83 Taxmann.com 82 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

Information received from the Investigation Wing, identifying the assessee as a beneficiary of accommodation entries through share application from a third party, constitutes valid tangible material and 'reasons to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

Judgments citing investigation wing

Pratap Singh Rathi, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Kanpur

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 502/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Pratap Singh Rathi, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of C-143, Surya Nagar, Income Tax , Ghaziabad Knp At Meerut Pin 201 001 Pan No. Ahkpr0582M (Appellant)M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shrey Jain &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

under: 5.8 Ld. PCIT in para 7.1 at page 9-10 of the revisionary order has mentioned that enquiry report of Investigation Wing, Kolkata was available with the Ld. AO at the time of making assessment which was not considered by Ld. AO while framing the impugned assessment. Ld. PCIT

Nazar Impex Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(3), Surat (Current Jurisdiction), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1212/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1212/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Nazar Impex Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat, Aaykar Vs. Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395 003 Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccn3603R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’), Dated 26.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 30.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeals Are As Under: “1. Ground 6. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Rejection Of Books Of Account Under Section 145(3) Of Income Tax, Act 1961 Without Pointing Out Any Defect In Books Of Account & Even The Return Income On The Basis Of Books Of Account Were Also Not Disputed.

Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 250

search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act in case of Rajendra Jain group, Bhanwarlal group and others on 03.10.2013 by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai. On the basis of material found from the premises of Shri Rajendra Jain, a survey action u/s 133A was also conducted in case ... vide letter No. No. DDIT(Inv.)U-IX(2)/BL/SAL/Inti/2013-14, Unit IX(2), Mumbai dated 15.04.2014. It is clear that the information received from Investigation Wing dated 15.04.2014 was already available with the AO when he started the original assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. In fact, notice

Vinita Bajoria, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

with his reply), the assessee wants to submit as follows:- a) The Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has herself submitted before the Investigation wing on 15.02.2018 in response of notice dated 19.01.2018 u/s 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 that the total sale consideration ... completely a post think story of the Ld. DR. b) With regard to non-submission of assessee’s reply dated 15.02.2018 to the Investigation Wing, it is submitted that the assessee didn’t possess acknowledged copy of her such reply dated 15.02.2018 hence, she could not include copy of such

Samkit Shashikant Shah, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3703/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dropping The Reassessment Proceedings.”

Section 148Section 148ASection 148BSection 263

basis of third-party information pertained only to rough diamonds. 15. In any event, it is trite law that the information received from the Investigation Wing is only a trigger, and the final action depends on independent verification based on the facts of each case. In the present case

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Mehta Emporium Jewellers, Mumbai

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

ITA 2830/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2830/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year :2019-20) Deputy Commissioner V/S. Mehta Emporium Of Income Tax- Central बिधम Jewellers Circle 8(3), Mumbai 101, Mehta Arch, S.V. Road, Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Opp. Natraj Market, Malad Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (West), Mumbai 400064 Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalfm2962N Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Devendra Jain रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292CSection 69A

original return declaring income of Rs. 45,65,490/- on 30.10.2019. A search had been carried out on the assessee on 11.01.2019 by the Investigation wing, Mumbai on the assessee. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in trading of gold and diamond jewellery. The assessment was completed ... Mehta Emporium Jewellers 11. It is observed from the assessment order and submission of the appellant that the appellant has submitted before the investigation wing the reconciliation of cash found during the search along with the concerned sale invoices. During the assessment proceedings also the appellant has furnished the reconciliation

Heaven Mahendra Shah, Vile Parle (West) vs. Asst. CIT - 33(1), Mumbai, Bandra (East)

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

ITA 6361/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt.Renu Jauhriheaven Mahendra Shah Vs Asst. Cit-33(1), Mumbai C-12, 7Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar 501/502, Cosmos, N.M. Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), 056 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aagps3148F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, CA a/w Shri Ajay Daga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi - SR DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

scrips of PAL & platform. We observe that the entire addition was confirmed solely on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department, Kolkata, which alleged that the rise in share price was manipulated, and that the assessee had introduced unaccounted income in the guise

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Tirupati Developers, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee are

ITA 2165/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2165/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) Dcit Cc – 7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. बनाम M/S. Tirupati Developers. 419, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri (W.), Mumbai-400053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeft6810B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रति आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 110/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2165/Mum/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Tirupati Developers. V/S. Dcit Cc – 7(3), 419, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi बनाम Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Industrial Estate, New Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Link Road, Andheri (W.), Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeft6810B निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rushabh Mehta राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Biswanath Das सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 18.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2025 Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

assessee firm is a part of the 'Lotus Group', on which a search action was carried out u/s 132 on 09.10.2014 by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai. On the basis of information found during the course of the search, a notice u/s 153A was issued on 08.02.2016 requiring the assessee

Mandir Shri Falodi Mata Ji Maharaj Samiti, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 421/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR (Thru’ V.C.)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

other sources and accordingly added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. However, as per information provided by the Investigation Wing as well as looking to the factual matrix of the issue under consideration as well as in view of the facts that the ownership ... noticed that the information in respect of above amount of Rs. Rs.60,71,129/- (Rs.48,71,129 + Rs.12,00,000/-) was provided by the Investigation Wing to the Department and the matter is sub judice before the Hon’ble High Court and other authorities and the AO made protective addition

Shah Rakesh Bhikhabhai (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 415/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri A P Singh, CIT. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

does not possess the above captioned information or documentation, it will be tantamount that your honour has directly adopted the information received from the investigation wing. It is well settled principle of law that before initiating any provisions of assessment, adequate inquiry ought to have been made. The information received ... tantamount to error on part of the assessing officer in concluding the assessment merely because the Pr. CIT got some other material from investigation wing In this regard, it is significant to cite the case of CIT vs. Shree Manjunatheaware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231ITR 53(SC), wherein

M/S. Shroff Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 483/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Shroff Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer, Block-B, 2Nd Floor, Flat No.2E, Ward 1(1), Kolkata, Ideal Height, 302, Apc Road, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Vs. Raja Ram Mohan Sarani, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700009, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs0490A Assessee By : Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhishak Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 133Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 5(2)

ground that assessee has received accommodation entry of ₹75,50,000/- based on the report from the investigation wing. The ld. AR stated that once the income has been assessed on estimated basis based on all the credit entries in the bank account and therefore any subsequent reopening ... quashed. 08. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the case was reopened based on the substantive information received from the investigation wing that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry. Therefore, the contention of the assessee is devoid of any merit and may be dismissed

Income Tax Officer-19(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Leeladevi Ganpatraj Sanghvi, Mumbai

Accordingly we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A). The grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are thus dismissed

ITA 2018/MUM/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CA

Section 250Section 68

assessee has obtained the loan is allegedly a bogus company. We notice in this regard that the AO has relied on the report from investigation wing in this regard. We further notice that the AO while making the addition has not recorded any adverse findings with regard to the documentary

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alodie Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1730/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Alodie Estates Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Income Tax, Central B-4/43, Floor, Safdarjung Circle-2, New Delhi Enclave, New Delhi-110029 Pan No.Aaica1782G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 68

credited in the accounts of OVPL, though deposited through proper banking channels, were not received from these companies/persons and the AO, or the Investigation Wing which conducted the initial and post-search investigations/enquiries which formed basis for reopening of assessment and reassessment, has not carried out any enquiry beyond issue

Santosh Kanwar, Jaipur vs. ITO 6(4 ) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 937/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 274Section 288Section 68Section 69C

assessment order and the impugned order and submitted that both the orders are well reasoned orders, based on the information received by the Investigation Wing, statements 3 Santosh Kanwar, Jaipur. recorded, report submitted by SIT, report submitted by SEBI and the material available, and that the assessee having failed ... accounts of claim as exempt income under the provisions of section 10(38) of the Act. 6. Case of the department is that its Investigation Wing conducted search at various places throughout the country. SEBI also made certain information public. The information from the Investigation Wing and SEBI 5 Santosh

Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 2069/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 270ASection 69C

documents. This lack of response further supported the conclusion that the transactions were not genuine. Based on the findings of the DVU and the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer held that the amount of Rs. 39,00,60,232/- claimed as purchases from these four parties was bogus. Accordingly, this ... taxmann.com 154 (Gujarat) / [2023] 291 Taxman 591 (Gujarat) / [2023] 451 ITR 395 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where AO received report from Investigation Wing that assessee-firm received accommodation entries in form of bogus purchases from one J group and made 100 per cent addition with respect

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Ashish Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 148/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

shares of M/s. Nivyah Infrastructure & Telecom Services Ltd. The learned AO has formed the said opinion on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing communicating that M/s. Nivyah Infrastructure & Telecom Services Ltd. is a penny stock listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange and appellant is one of the beneficiary ... reasons, information was received from the Investigation Wing regarding the share of M/s. Nivyah Infrastructure & Telecom Services Ltd. However, it is submitted that the appellant has not dealt with shares of M/s. Nivyah Infrastructure & Telecom Services Ltd. In fact appellant has sold shares of M/s. S. V. Electricals Ltd. during