“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

Sh. Ankit Somani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Jaipur

Appeal is hereby dismissed as having been withdrawn

ITA 986/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.C.Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 68Section 92(1)

order, Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by upholding the assessment order, while observing that the Assessing Officer had thoroughly analysed report of the Investigation Wing and the documents collected during investigation carried out by the said Wing, to prove that the appellant introduced bogus long term capital gain

A Kheni Developer Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 12(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1878/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri V.P. KothariFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

entity controlled by Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain, who in his statement recorded under section 132(4)/131 of the Act admitted before the Investigation Wing that they were merely dummy entities engaged in providing accommodation entries in terms of bogus unsecured loan, bogus purchases, etc. Accordingly, the assessee was asked

Chandra Bhawan, Kaushambi vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Kaushambi

In the result, while appeal in ITA No

ITA 41/ALLD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Chandra Bhawan, Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assis Chak Guraini, Baish Kanti, Kaushambi- Tant Commissioner Of Income 212206 Tax/Income-Tax Officer, Present Address National Faceless Assessment 39A/L/2, Om Prakash, Sabhasad Marg, Centre, Delhi Kalindipuram, Prayagraj-211011 Pan:Ahjpb4378C (Appellant) (Respondent) A.Y. 2016-17 Chandra Bhawan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chak Guraini, Baish Kanti, Kaushambi- Ward-2(5), Kaushambi 212206 Present Address 39A/L/2, Om Prakash, Sabhasad Marg, Kalindipuram, Prayagraj-211011 Pan:Ahjpb4378C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Mayank Arora, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 19.01.2024 (For The Assessment

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 156Section 250Section 69A

would have been well advised to refer the matter to the Assessing Officers of those persons, or if they were not known, to the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, for further follow up. But the failure to locate the actual beneficiaries of the said bank account, could

Chandra Bhawan, Kaushambi vs. Addl./Joint/ACIT/ITO, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, while appeal in ITA No

ITA 141/ALLD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 156Section 250Section 69A

Balaji Metal and Sponge Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1486/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

income of Rs. 'NIL'. Case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act as per information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata that the assessee company was I.T.A. No.: 1486/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Balaji Metal And Sponge Pvt. Ltd. beneficiary of Rs. 15 Lakh

Raghav Commodities, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 943/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

accommodation entries – Payments through banking channel and companies investing money genuine – No independent application of mind by Assessing Officer but acting under information from investigation wing – Notice to be quashed – Income Tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148. In case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd [2017] reported ... taxmann.com 348 (Delhi) it is held by Hon’ble Delhi High court that where information was received from investigation wing that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further inquiry was undertaken by Assessing Officer, said information could not be said to be tangible material per se and, thus

Rakesh Kumar Singrodia, Mukundgarh Mandi, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO, WD 1, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1168/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Jain, CA (V.H)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 37(1)Section 68

facts of the case. Therefore, the ground no.1 raised by the appellant is dismissed. 14.0 The AO received the credible information from investigation wing in the form of a statement of a person (Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta) who is controlling the certain concerns who are providing accommodation entries

Mahaveer Ranka HUF, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-28(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 965/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Jhunjunwala, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Mr. R R Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68

Assessee and has not raised any doubt and/or not contradicted the documents filed by the Assessee, however, by considering “the findings of the investigation wing, unusual rise in the price of the shares, analysis of the transactions and ignorance of the Assessee about shares of the penny stock companies, cash ... therefore, on the aforesaid analyzations and in our considered view, the Assessee cannot be fastened with the liability, simply on the findings of the investigation wing, allegations qua 5 ITA No.224/M/2024 & ors. Shri Mahaveer Kanwarlal Ranka rigging of the share prices, unusual rise in the prices of the share, financial

Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan Mumbai vs. Energia Consultancy LLP(Aaefp7252L)(Earlier Known As Energia Consultancy Pvt Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the cross objection filed by the Assessee stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4475/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Santosh Kumar, Sr. A.R

Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 69C

recorded, cannot be acceded to. It is not required, in view of the availability of the conclusive evidence and supporting statements as provided by investigation wing of the Department after conducting proper enquiry, investigation and due deliberation. It is also not possible due to proceeding getting barred by limitation

Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Lashkaria Construction Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3547/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

making addition on account of bogus purchases during the regular scrutiny assessment the Assessing Officer had made reference to the information received from the Investigation Wing in relating to Assessee indulging in the taking bogus accommodation entries from the entities identified by the Sales Tax Department, Mumbai. We also note

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Nanikram Menghraj Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3162/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriito V/S. Nanikram Menghraj Trust Room No.618, Mtnl बनाम 113, 114 Navjivan, Building, Cumbala Hill, Commercial Building No.3, Peddar Road, Lamington Road, Maharashtra-400026 Mumbai Central, Maharashtra-400008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatn2215N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel &For Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

vide order dated 10.03.2014 wherein the Ld. AO accepted the total income at nil. Subsequently, information was received from the Investigation Wing of the department that the assessee trust had sold an immovable property for an amount of Rs. 15,25,00,000/- during FY 2010-11 relevant

Mahaveerkumar Kanwarlal Ranka, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-28(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 224/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Jhunjunwala, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Mr. R R Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Officer-42(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Ketan Gunvantrai Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, instant appeal and CO filed respectively by the Revenue Department and the Assessee, stands dismissed

ITA 3870/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish Shetty, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Santosh Kumar, Sr

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

brevity, first we are deciding ITA No.3870/M/2023 In this case, on the information received from the investigation wing of the Income Tax, Mumbai to the effect that the Assessee has made transaction in penny stock shares of bogus company viz. M/s. Exelon Infrastructure Ltd., the case of the Assessee ... scrips were Rs.1,93,44,387/- (including other charges). The AO considering the said stocks as penny stocks and the findings of the investigation wing, the statement of the exit providers in the survey report, 3 CO No.135/M/2024 Shri Ketan Gunvantrai Mehta analysis of cash trial etc. ultimately treated

Shanti Chowdhry, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 69(2), Delhi

ITA 2975/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Shanti Chowdhary, 305, Tax Officer, Plot Number 35, Jai Ward 69(2), Delhi Apartments, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Pan : Adcpc3729R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vipul Gupta, Advocate Department By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr, Dr

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151

opening. On the basis of the information received from JDIT(investigation), Unit-1, New Delhi, search and seizure operation was carried out by the Investigation Wing, New Delhi, in the case of one Shri Anand Kumar Jain and Shri Naresh Kumar Jain having business of providing accommodation entries to various

Chandrakumar Madhusudanji Jajodia, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati Circle

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 399/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68Section 69A

Unit-4, Kolkata, and at Para– 12 of the assessment order, has reproduced the extract of the statement of certain persons recorded by Investigation Wing of Kolkata. On the basis of such statement, the Assessing Officer has concluded that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus to explain ... Page 5 & 6 A) Notice has been issued u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 on 26/03/2018 on the basis of report dated 08/03/2018 of Investigation Wing of Kolkata. No independent enquiry has been made by A.O. in respect to information received from Investigation Wing of Kolkata before issue of notice

Bdg Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1216/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1216/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Bdg Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,….………………………Appellant 26, P.K. Tagore Street, Kolkata-700006 [Pan:Aabcb0391B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 28, 2024 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

that the Ld. A.O. proceeded to reopen the assessment u/s 147 of the Act merely proceeding upon borrowed satisfaction of the Investigation Wing without conducting any independent enquiry which renders the initiation of proceeding u/s 147 bad-in-law and consequently the order passed u/s 147/144 r.w.s. 144B is liable

Mohan Lal Ashok Kumar Saraf, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 879/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Totuka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

CIRCLE-1 JAIPUR no application for additional evidence has also been filed for the consideration as per law. The appellant has also submitted that Investigation Wing, of the Income Tax Department, also issued summon dated 17-3-2017 to the appellant firm calling for various details of the transactions undertaken ... firm from 1st October, 2016 to 31st December, 2016 and the same were submitted by the appellant and no action was taken by the Investigation Wing against the appellant in this regard and hence the appellant has drawn the analogy that adverse view cannot be taken by the learned Assessing

Sh. Mukut Behari Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The DCIT, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1067/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

reopening the assessment u/s 148 in the case of assessee solely on the basis of so-called information received from the Investigation Wing and without independent application of mind and without providing adequate opportunity. Thus, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the reopening of the assessment ... confirming the action of the AO in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act solely on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing. 2.2 The Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and during the year under consideration he was engaged in the business

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Manlife Trading Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5355/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SR DR

Section 68Section 69C

assessee from an entity having no creditworthiness and through a non-genuine transaction which was clearly established in the information provided by the Investigation wing and firmly confirmed in the assessment proceeding." 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT

Dhanpriya Enterprises LLP, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 30(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4547/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhridhanpriya Enterprises Llp V/S. Ito, 30(1)(3), Mumbai B-401 Raghav Building, बनाम Bandra Kurla Complex, Film City Road, Mumbai-400051 Malad East, Mumbai-400097 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahfd5779N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Karpe

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

brief facts of the case are that during a search and seizure action conducted on Kamala Group of cases on 08.01.2013 by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, a pendrive containing details regarding cash received from the sales of flat was recovered. The assessee is one of the customers whose name