“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

Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

ITA 158/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69

Rs.8,31,02,597/- out of which total cash withdrawals were for Rs. 4,67,78,900/-. In this respect, the notices issued by investigation wing are not complied with by the assessee. Accordingly, the case of assessee was reopened u/s.147 ... acted in accordance with the mandate of law, therefore, the reopening was done on the basis of new material brought on record by the Investigation Wing of the department. Further, in absence of any investigation, examination or inference by the Ld. AO in the original assessment qua the basis

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat vs. Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 224/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 250Section 271ASection 69

account of M/s Nirav & Co. was operated on 15.09.2014 and 10.11.2014 and assessee was not concerned with the transactions on these dates. The Investigation Wing and the AO have not examined Mr. Nirav Shah on these credit entries. In the course of the proceedings before CIT(A), assessee filed ... sale of gold and silver bullion, the amount of Rs.36,17,00,112/- cannot be accepted as explained. 17. The survey team of the Investigation Wing and the AO have made detailed enquiry in the case. It is not the case that assessee was prevented to explain the source

Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 197/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 250Section 271ASection 69

Bluesun Exports Pvt Ltd, Andheri(W) vs. ITO Circle-9(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3174/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan: A.Y : 2009-10 M/S. Bluesun Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bldg No. 11/15, New Akandiyot Circle-9(2)(1), Mumbai. Chs Ltd., Level 11, J.P. Road, (Respondent) Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 053. Pan : Aadcb6476H (Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms. Aadnya BhandariFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

business. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO received information from the investigation wing that they have conducted search in Pravin Kumar Jain group of cases and found out that they were providing only accommodation entries, inter alia ... form of giving share application money. The investigation wing also reported that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries 2 M/s. Bluesun Exports Pvt. Ltd. of the accommodation entries. Accordingly, the AO reopened the assessment of the year under consideration by issuing notice

Sunil Garg, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1214/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Man Mohan Agarwal, Vs Dcit/Acit, 1/8, Shri Laxmi Lok, New Central Circle, Mohanpuri, Sarrafa Bazar, Ghaziabad. Meerut, U.P-250002. Pan-Acapa1883B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and basis for formation of such belief were several inquiries and investigation by Investigation Wing that there had been escapement of income of assessee from assessment because of his failure to disclose fully and truly nil material facts, reopening

Santosh Bhansali HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result this appeal is also allowed for withdrawal and treated the same as dismissed

ITA 715/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Saurav Harsh, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

erred in confirming the action of the AO in arbitrarily applying the modus operandi narrated by the broker in the statement recorded by the Investigation Wing Kolkata d) That the Ld. CIT grossly erred in not giving the opportunity for cross examination of the brokers on whose statement

Santosh Bhansali HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result this appeal is also allowed for withdrawal and treated the same as dismissed

ITA 703/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Saurav Harsh, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Shri Krishan Kumar Jalan, Bangalore vs. ITO, W-1, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

dated 31/12/2016. 2.10 In the aforesaid assessment order dt. 31/12/2016 the Ld. AO has taken into consideration investigation carried out by the investigation wing of Income Tax Department which led to a country wide investigation to unearth the organized racket of generating bogus entries of long term capital gains (hereinafter ... Purchase and Sale of Shares and earning of Long Term Capital Gains are not Genuine on the following points:- i. Investigation Report of the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department: The Investigation Wing of the Department carried on a number of Search & Seizure and Survey operations on a large

G.Ananthasubramaniam, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-15(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2505/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2505/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-2015) G. Ananthasubramaniam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.21/7, 2Nd Main Road, Non Corporate Ward 15(1) Kasturba Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. Chennai 600 020. [Pan: Aaapa 8460E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. P. James Victor Rajkumar, ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Mr. P. James Victor RajkumarFor Respondent: Ms. D. Komali Krishna, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153A

Taxmann.com 64 (SC) has held that no addition can be made on the basis of third-party information gathered by the Investigation Wing of the Department. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned additions are not sustainable in law and therefore, we delete the impugned additions

Dinesh Ghanshyam Jani, Bora Bazar Street Fort vs. ACIT -4 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5080/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Girish Agrawal, A.M. A.Y.2012-13 Dinesh Ghanshyam Jani, Acit-4(3)(1), 19/21, 4Th Floor, Bora Bazar, Mumbai Street Fort, Mumbai Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Acnpj 3582D Assessee By Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, Revenue By Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.01.2025

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

under dispute, assessee did not file any return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing of the AY 2012-13 Dinesh Ghanshyam Jani Vs. ACIT, Mumbai Department that in the year under consideration, the assessee had received accommodation entries

Unimax Chemicals Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in allowed

ITA 4070/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)

found any fault with the documents submitted by the assessee. Learned assessing officer, has relied merely upon the report submitted by the investigation wing of Kolkata 4 Unimax Chemicals Private Limited which was conducted during the course of survey carried out u/s. 133A of the Act. Learned assessing officer could ... have relied upon the general report given by the investigation wing as there is no material to show that the assessee ever received back the money given by it as donations. Learned AR has further submitted that the issue involved is covered by the order dated 05.07.2024 passed

ITO(It)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Subramania Sreenivasan Ganeshnath, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in terms of paragraph 8 and 9 above

ITA 2439/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hiren CFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Savant

Section 142(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Assessee in respect of equity shares of Kushal Limited [formerly known as Kushal Tradelink Limited (BSE Code: 536170)]. Placing reliance upon the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer concluded that Kushal Limited was a penny stock company which has been used by the operators and entry/exit providers for introducing unaccounted cash ... that the assessing officer has relied upon the statement of one Shri Ashish Pannalal Shah recorded under section 131 of the Act by the Investigation Wing of the Department during the course of action under section 132 of the Act in the case of Kushal Group. As per the assessing

Shital Dhorda, Mumbai vs. ITO-22(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4625/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Ito – 22(3)(3) Shital Dhorda 408, Piramal Chambers 1002, 10Th Floor, Lalbaug, Mumbai – Vibgyor, S.V. Road, 400012. Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400054. Pan/Gir No. Ajvpd0456H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Snehal Shah Revenue By Shir Vithal Machindra Bhosale, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 16.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 04.07.2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’), For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

erred in confirming the action taken by the Ld. AO by failing to appreciate that the appellant has neither been interrogated by the investigation wing DGIT(INV), Mumbai nor does the learned Assessing Officer is in possession of any evidence whatsoever to even remotely conclude that the appellant has paid ... cash payment on account of ‘on-money’ to the builder, it was also submitted that merely relying upon the information received from the Investigation Wing Mumbai, AO made the additions without carrying out any independent enquiries or considering the submissions of the assessee. The assessee also relied upon his written

Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ghaziabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1941/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Shri Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Vs Dcit, R-5/21, Raj Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201002. Ghaziabad Pan-Abcpb4457B Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Central Circle, House No.21, Sector-5, Ghaziabad Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad-201002. Pan-Abcpb4457B Appellant Respondent

Section 1

fact that the as per the CBDT guideline F. No. 286/161/2006-IT (Inv. II) dt. 22.12.2006, copy of appraisal report is shared by Investigation Wing with both that the assessing officer and Joint CIT. In fact, CBDT guideline dt. 22.12.2006 (Copy enclosed) on the subject of the search and Seizure Assessments

Satish Kumar Agrawal, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

ITA 145/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.145/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Satish Kumar Agrawal 3B, Heav Industrial Area, Hathkhoj, Bhilai, Dist. Durg-490 026 (C.G.) Pan: Adqpa1785K

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69C

Ward-2(1), Bhilai (ii) Firstly, we need to note that the report of the DDIT is by an authority of the investigation wing of the Income Tax department. Therefore, at the threshold it cannot be treated to be a third-party report. Therefore, in our view the decision ... facts of the cases are different. Here the statements were recorded on oath U/s 131 (1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the investigation wing of the department that too 12 Satish Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai during survey proceedings. Hence, the case laws

Saroj Tilakraj Juneja, Surat vs. DCIT Circle-1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1048/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1048/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Saroj Tilakraj Juneja, Vs. The Dcit, 3, Subhas Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Circle - 1(1)(1), Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abbpj5634M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 69

return of income for AY.2014-15 on 30.08.2014, declaring income of Rs.17,31,010/-. Based on ITA No.1048/SRT/2024/AY.2014-15 Saroj Tilakraj Juneja information received from the Investigation Wing that assessee had invested unaccounted money in a project by the name West Field Shopping Centre, the case was reopened u/s 147 and notice

Shelly Bansal, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Mohali

ITA 976/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Developers Ltd. However, the AO rejected the said explanation holding that the assessee has not submitted any proof of denial whereas information received from Investigation Wing was a credible piece of information and therefore a show cause along with draft assessment order was issued to the assessee on 24/03/2022

Anish Garg, Patiala vs. ITO Ward-4, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 739/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(4)

well within his right to reopen the assessment proceedings basis information in his possession as well as information received from the Investigation Wing. It was accordingly submitted that the ground so taken by the assessee challenging the assumption of jurisdiction therefore required to be dismissed. 8. Further, on merits

Vijay Maneklal Bhansali, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1773/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivram / Shri Shashi Bekal,ARsFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 151Section 153CSection 68

decisions by other High Courts in favour of revenue where the reopening has been upheld when it was based on information from the investigation wing of the department. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Anderson Biomet (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 129 taxmann.com 135 (Guj.) held that where ... could be restricted to the profit only. It is equally true that the assessee at no point denied having made the transaction which the Investigation wing of the Department found sham and made only with the intention of money laundering. However, it is equally true that the assessee has duly

Manish K Ajmera, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 986/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

search was conducted subsequent to the search u/s.132 in the case of Shri Shirish C. Shah and Pranneta Industries Ltd. on 09/04/2013, wherein the Investigation Wing found that Shri Shirish C Shah was involved in providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus long term capital gain in the shares ... office premises of PIL on 09/04/2013 alongwith search in the residence and office premises of Shri Shirish C Shah. It was found by the investigation wing that books of accounts were maintained by Shri Shirish C Shah from Mumbai and there were no underlying assets and all the activities shown