“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

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1161/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Years: 2011-12 Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6, Waterloo Street, Kolkata- Vs. 3(3), Kolkata. 700069. (Pan: Aaecs5627C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

period of time as seen from the balance sheet. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer has simply acted on the information received from the Investigation Wing without verifying the details furnished by the assessee. The assessee has also produced best possible evidence to support its claim. Consequently the addition made

Ksj Infrastructure Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

ITA 1110/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1110/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Ksj Infrastructure The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Grant Lane, Room Central Circle -1(1), No. 218, Kolkata – 700 012. Chennai – 600 0034. [Pan:Aadcc-5913-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Rama Krishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. B. Rama Krishnan, FCA and Shri. Shrenik Chordia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)Section 153CSection 234BSection 68

relevant facts of the ld. CIT(A) are as under: “11.18 It is evident from the investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing that the company was not at all making any worthwhile profit during the period before the transaction, during the period of transaction and after the transaction, There

M/S Tjr Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh

ITA 5/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 68

Panchnama (paperbook page 276-279). The books of account were examined by the AO before sending the Deviation Note dated 24.12.2019 to Investigation Wing. This is evident from the contents of the AO's letter dated 24.12.2019 (paperbook page 297-299). The Dictat by the ADIT (Investigation), on which, however

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1438/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1437/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

additions of Rs.6,26,847/-. It had been found that the completed assessment had been reopened on the ground of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department that the assessee had made purchases from alleged bogus suppliers. The AO, after having made detailed enquiry and investigation, found that ... correctly pointed out, it is seen that the facts and the report of the Investigation Wing of the Department were all available with the AO during the assessment proceedings and there was no new fact having emerged after the passing of the assessment order or any fact that had been

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

Mr Vicky Murli Advani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Int. Tax) Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3664/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhmr. Vicky Murli Advani Vs. Income Tax Officer, T3-3202, Runval Greens, International Tax, Rosewood, Near Fortis Ward1(1)(1), Hospital, Mulund Room No. 1817A, 18Th Goregaon Link Road, Floor, Air India Bldg. Mulund West- 400 078 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Agypa7741A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rajesh Sanghvi Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2024

For Appellant: Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

entered into transactions with the group concern of Runwal Group by way of purchase of a flat. This information brought out by the investigation wing during the course of search proceedings and has relevance to the assessee for the purchase of the said flat. 1. The said information obtained during

Bharat Laxman Bhiwapurkar, Thane vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Thane

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

ITA 3413/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhbharat Laxman Vs. Ito, Ward 1(5), Bhiwapurkar, 204, Room No. 14, B Wing, Oxford, Regency Heights, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Azad Nagar, Kolshet, Road No. 16Z, Wagle, Thane - 400602 Ind. Estate, Thane-400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Abnpb8487A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Subodh Ratnaparkhi Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 26.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 03.08.2023 For A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Hon. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding Re-Opening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, Inspite Of The Fact That There Was No Incriminating Material Pertaining To The Appellant With Regards To Alleged On-Money Paid For Purchase Of Flat From Cosmos Group & Therefore The Re-Opening Was In Absence Of Any Independent & Valid Belief On The Part Of The Id Ao That Any Income Chargeable To Tax Had Escaped Assessment. The Re-Opening Of Assessment U/S 147 Being Bad-In-Law, The Asst. Order Flowing Therefrom, Being The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Is Also Invalid & Bad In Law & Hence The Same May Be Quashed 2. The Hon Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 31,00,000/-, U/S 69 Of The 1.1 Act, 1961, As Unexplained Investment Towards Alleged On- Money Paid Towards Purchase Of Flat No. A-07, 7Th Floor, Twilight, Cosmos Horizon, Ghodbunder Road, Thane (W) To Cosmos Group, Ignoring The Contentions Of The Appellant That There Was No Incriminating

For Appellant: Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

sides and perused the material on record. The assessee is an individual deriving income from salary. The assessing officer received information from the investigation wing in respect of search action taken place in the case of Cosmos Group engaged in the business of building and construction and the information relating

Eastern Drug & Sanitary Product, Meerut vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40

show cause notice, the assessee again explained the same thing before him. 12. Learned PCIT in his order has referred to some report of Investigation Wing, which mentios that the assessee was involved in some NRHM scam, which was raided by CBI and the key persons namely Shri Surendra Chaudhary ... sheet The Application is misconceived and is accordingly rejected." 13. Thereafter, learned PCIT observed that when the books of accounts were asked by the Investigation Wing, the assessee claimed that the same is missing and at the same time, the assessee stated before the Assessing Officer that it had produced

Sulochana Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

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

ITA 187/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 144Section 147Section 263

share capital and or loan and advances. However, there is not an iota of material by way of any inquiry or information from Investigation Wing that, firstly, above named assessee companies have been found to be beneficiary of accommodation entry in any search or survey in the case of entry

Kunjal Synergies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 802/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 68

respect of share capital/share premium and justify the amount of premium received from five subscribers by referring the information received from Directorate of Investigation Wing vide letter dated 28.11.2014 regarding accommodation entries provided to the assessee company. The AO issued summons

Sandeep Kherada, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 610/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam (CIT)(V.H)

Section 131Section 144

During the course of search, statement of the assessee were recorded and entire jewellery found in possessing of the assessee was seized by the Investigation Wing, Banglore. Also search was carried out at the business premises of the assessee at Jaipur however, no seizure was made at Jaipur. Various details ... canvassed together for sake of convenience. Facts pertaining to these grounds of appeal as stated above are that assessee was intercepted by the Investigation Wing at Banglore Airport on 18.09.2012 and 17 Sandeep Kherada vs. ITO total stock of Rs. 2094.510 gms. gold jewellery available with the assessee was seized

Nirwan Monetary Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3745/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Maheshwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Arunkumar, D.R

Section 143(3)

years under consideration and case was reopened by initiating the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. On the basis of information received from investigation wing, Mumbai a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted in case of M/s. Vipul Vidhur Bhatt and his other related entities

Nirwan Monetary Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3744/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Maheshwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Arunkumar, D.R

Section 143(3)

Natasha Kohli, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi

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

ITA 1792/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatr Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)Section 69

submitted the remand report (PB pg. 49-56) vide letter dated 29.01.2018 wherein it was mentioned that information was received from FIU in the investigation wing regarding foreign account of the assessee. Also it was observed that the assessee is a beneficial owner of said account from FT & TR division ... Base Note which the Income Tax Department obtained under exchange of information between French government and Indian government under the provisions of DTAA. The investigation wing and the assessing officer heavily relied on the information contained in the Base Note which they have confronted with the expectation that assessee will

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7755/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

interest on such loan which they return back in cash after deducting their commission. 4.1 Further on analysis of the data provided by the Investigation Wing assessee firm M/s. Jagan Nath Hemchand was found to be enlisted in the name of the beneficiaries of accommodation entry from Kriya Impex ... assessment even beyond a period of four years are therefore satisfied. Merely because such information was supplied to the Assessing Officer by the investigation wing of the department would not mean that the Assessing Officer cannot reply upon it after of course, perusing the same and form his own opinion

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7754/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C