“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

Chirag Construction Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT 32(1), Mumbai

ITA 2634/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 68

evidence and mere filing of the aforesaid documents did not prove the genuineness of the transaction in view of the enquiries conducted by the investigation wing which showed that M/s Navkar Diamonds was engaged in providing accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer concluded that the Appellant had failed to discharge onus ... independent inquiry and brining on record any material to controvert the same merely by placing reliance on the inquiry conducted by the investigation wing in relation to M/s Navkar Diamonds. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case and on weighing the varied probabilities, we find that

Vinay Shravankumar Agrawal, Chembur vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 2293/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 148

that the assessee has claimed to have availed professional fee services from M/s. AGV Consultants. During the course of survey action by the Investigation Wing, the Income Tax authorities observed that M/s. AGV Consultants had debited the bogus or fictitious expenses against consultancy services rendered which were not allowable

Vinay Shravankumar Agrawal, Vashi vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre

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

ITA 2292/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 148

Paschim Finance & Chit Fund Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1073/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1073/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2012-13) Paschim Finance & Chit Fund P. Ltd., 209, Bhanot Plaza-Ii, 3 Db Gupta Road, Paharganj, New Delhi 110055 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaccp-7246-E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal , Sr. DR

Section 148Section 234A

Departmental Representative and on the basis of material already on record. 4. Ms. Shivani Bansal, representing the department submits that information was received from investigation wing of the department that the assessee has received huge cash deposits during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer after examining entire gamut

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Bareilly vs. I.T.O. 2(3), Bareilly

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

ITA 108/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrarajesh Kumar Gupta Ito-2(3) V. C606, Patel Nagar, Barelly- C.R. Building, Civil Lines, 243001. Barelly-243001. Pan:Agupg2877M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri A. P. Sinha, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri A. P. Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 147Section 69A

following additional grounds: - Page 2 of 6 “1. Because the Ld. Assessing Officer erred while not giving the copy of report of the National Investigation Wing which was the very basis of reopening the assessment. 2. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there

Prafulla Kumar Malakar, Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Kolkata vs. Kanya Kumari Properties Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2027/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)

instead of giving any opportunity to the assessee denied to do so and pressurized the assessee to withdraw the claim as Investigation Wing of the Department had reported that the donee institute was a bogus organization after survey proceedings. We further find from the submission and documents filed

Raj Hemant Shroff, Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 986/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Raj Hemant Shroff Acit-6(1)(1), Mumbai 11, Vallabh Apartments, Bhulabhai Vs Desai Road Breach Candy, Mumbai-400036. Pan: Aacps 5875 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

Looking to the above facts and circumstances, it is evident from the reasons recorded that AO had compared the report received from the Investigation Wing with the income tax record available with the assessing officer and arrived to the conclusion that the huge amount of transaction does not match with ... income profile of the assessee. Further on the query of the ld. Counsel that assessing officer has not shared the information received from the Investigation Wing with the assessee before reopening the case, we find that assessing officer has re-produced the whole contents of the investigation report

Madhav Sheth, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon vs. Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai, Air India Building

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

ITA 5051/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2019-20 Madhav Sheth Central Circle-6(1), Mumbai B-81, Golf Course Road, The Vs Pinnacle Dlf City, Phase-V, Sector- 43, Gurgaon, Haryana-122009. Pan: Ajaps 4139 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita NaberaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR

Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 271D

year under consideration assessing total income at Rs. 77,21,590/-. Subsequently, information was received from the Investigation Wing of the Department that one shri Vijay Kulkarni who was found in possession of cash of Rs. 2,00,50,000/- at his office, in his statement, stated that

Money Magnum Constructions, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 27, Mumbai

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

ITA 2445/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Money Magnum Constructions Pr. Cit, Circle-27 Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Plot No. 157 Samruddhi, 18Th Road, Near Ambedkar Garden, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station, Vs. Chembur (E), Mumbai-400 071 Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703. Pan/Gir No. Aacfn 9126 C (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Paresh Shaparia : Ms.Sanyogita Nagpal Respondent By : 09.09.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pcit, Mumbai-27 (‘Ld. Pcit For Short), Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Relevant To Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: I. “Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Bad In Law: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr. Cit 27 Erred In Treating The Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 24 March 2022 (Re-Assessment Order) As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Thereby Setting Aside The Order. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr.Cit 27 Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Original Assessment Order As Well As Re- Assessment Order Have Duly Considered The Transaction Of Nsel Commodity Loss Of Rs

For Appellant: Shri. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: 09.09.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

case was reopened vide notice u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2021 by the ld. AO for the reason that, based on the information from the investigation wing of the Income Tax Department the assessee has obtained fictitious profits in commodity trading in NSEL by Client Code Modification (CCM) were the assessee ... been set off against its regular business income. The ld. AR further stated that the assessee has sought for the details of the investigation wing data, the statement recorded, the seized material and details of client code modification, etc. along with other details during the assessment proceeding

Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Mumbai, Income Tax Department vs. Monarch Technobuild Private Limted, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 1287/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail: A.Y. : 2012-13 C.O. No. 172/Mum/2024 A.Y. : 2012-13 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1287/M/24)

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68Section 69A

292B of the Act. As far as the grounds challenging the validity of re-assessment, the Ld.DR submitted that information was received from Investigation Wing of the Department regarding the high value transaction carried out by the assessee and as no corresponding income was reported by the assessee, therefore

Advance Impex Private Limted, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), New Delhi

ITA 9049/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Shyam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 69C

Assessing Officer’s corresponding assessment dated 27.12.2016 in this lead case that some cash was seized in Gujarat which resulted in the department’s investigation wing passing information to the assessee’s Assessing Officer that one Sh. Sant Lal Aggarwal had admitted to have advanced cash loans to the assessee ... well as interest payment thereupon before the Assessing Officer which stood rejected in the assessment going by his information coming from the department’s investigation wing. He thus proceeded to assess cash interest payment amounting to Rs.1,81,47,335/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. He further

Advance Impex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle1(2), New Delhi

ITA 8487/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Shyam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 69C

Advance Impex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle1(2), New Delhi

ITA 8486/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Shyam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 69C

Moni Kumar Subba, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-08, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1969/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Before Shri Mahavir Singh & Before Shri Before Shri Mahavir Singh & Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhshri Brajesh Kumar Singhshri Brajesh Kumar Singhshri Brajesh Kumar Singh

case was selected for scrutiny assessment and assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, a search was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Department under Section 132 of the Act on 29th April, 2014. Consequent to search and seizure operation conducted under Section