“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

Shark Packaging (India) Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 2163/DEL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

reject such application. 3. That the Ld. AO made the addition without the application of mind only on basis of the report received from investigation wing. ITA Nos. 8309 & 8310/Del/2019 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by erroneously dismissing the appeal in limine ... That the learned Assessing Officer made the addition without the application of mind only on basis of the report received from the investigation wing.” 3.2 From the above rival contentions and additional legal grounds sought to be raised by the assessee, we note that by way of above noted additional

Shark Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 8310/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

Shark Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 8309/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

M/S. Inter Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 7(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 609/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 609/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Inter Securities Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 7(3), 8, Camac Street Vs Kolkata 8Th Floor Suite No. 807 Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aacci 3971M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V. N. Dubey, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/02/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law As Well As In Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well As In Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Addiitons Made By Ld. A.O. Who Treated The Share Application Money Including Premium Of Rs.3,59,00,000/- As Bogus & Added Back The Same To The Total Income Of The Appellant U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2

For Appellant: Shri V. N. Dubey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

subsequent years, i.e., AY: 2011-12 and AY: 2012-13, assessment proceedings were reopened on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and orders w/s. 147 read with section 143(3) have been passed on 21.12.2018 and 11.12.2018 respectively for assessment year 2011-12 and assessment year ... assessment year 2011-12 information was received from the Investigation Wing regarding unaccounted income of Rs. 3,00,000/- received by M/s. Seaview Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and accordingly addition of this amount was made by treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Similarly, for assessment

Vipul M Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO -17(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhvipul M Shah (Huf) Vs. The Ito 17(3)(5) 404, Commerce House, Mumbai 140, N.M. Road, Fort, Maharashtra – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabhv3153Q Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Vimal Punamiya Respondent By : Gotimukul Santosh Kumar Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2023

For Appellant: Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Gotimukul Santosh Kumar

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

assessment the AO has also mentioned the statement of Shri Vipul V. Bhatt one of the operators and intermediaries recorded by the Mumbai Investigation Wing in which he accepted that Sunrise Asian Limited has provided accommodation entries. In response to the show cause notice the assessee submitted that ... enquiry from either the broker of the assessee Hornic Investment Pvt. Ltd. or from the exit provider. Simply relying upon the information from the Investigation Wing of some of the brokers who have provided accommodation entry in this scrip cannot be the sole reason of adverse inference unless AO himself

DCIT, International Taxation Circle-Gurugram, Gurugram vs. Vikas Arora, Gurugram

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2335/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessment does not reveal any independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. He observed that merely based on information received from ACIT, Investigation Wing the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment without making any independent inquiry. He further observed that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has erroneously ... stated that the assessee has not filed his return of income. Further, the Assessing Officer has referred to the information received from the Investigation Wing regarding the credit entries in the savings bank account of the assessee. The aforesaid facts clearly reveal that though, the assessee has filed his return

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Jaipal Singh Sharma Trust, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2127/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

assessee as the lender company had declared income of Rs 9,99,730/- only during the year. Further, enquiries were made by the Investigation Wing and it was found that the lender company is a bogus entity and merely working for providing accommodation entries to various entities. Thus, the creditworthiness ... assessee as the lender company had declared income of Rs 9,99,730/- only during the year. Further, enquiries were made by the Investigation Wing and it was found that the lender company is a bogus entity and merely working for providing accommodation entries to various persons/entities. Thus, the creditworthiness

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Jaipal Singh Sharma Trust, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2126/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

Ait, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Ankit Sharma, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2125/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Nidhi Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2124/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

Ankit Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1842/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

Parminder Singh, Jind vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bhiwani

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1411/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1411/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Parminder Singh Ito H.No.2748, Urban Estate, Vs. Ward-2, Jind, Haryana. Bhiwani. Pan No.Bckps3874B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

believe that income had escaped assessment is necessary for reopening the case u/s 147/148 of the Act and the information received from the Investigation Wing or AIR cannot be said to be a tangible material per se without further inquiry being undertaken by the AO. The conclusion ... tangible material and the formation of the reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, could be discerned. The information received from the Investigation Wing was not tangible material per se without a further enquiry having been undertaken by the Assessing Officer, who had deprived himself of that opportunity

Hema Engineering Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5424/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: the Tribunal, therefore, we are compelled to decide the present Appeal after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative and on perusing the material on record.

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

completed on 28/03/2013 at total income of Rs. 29,67,75,254/-. Certain piece of information was received from Investigating Wing that the Assessee had received fictitious loss of Rs. 49,09,315/- from Mansukh Securities and Finance Ltd. and therefore, Hema Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT reduced the profit ... four wheelers and other engineering items its various manufacturing units. The AO has stated in the assessment order that information was received from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department that the appellant has received fictitious loss of Rs. 48,09,315 from Mansukh Securities and Finance

ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Devender Kumar, Faridabad

ITA 1459/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H K Choudhary, CIT(DR)

hands of Mr. Chaudhary by observing that the entire material on record clearly supports the statement of Shri Devender Kumar recorded by the Investigation Wing on 18.10.2013 and the subsequent statement of Shri Devender Kumar recorded by Assessing Officer on 11.03.2016 has not been corroborated by any evidence or material ... supported by affidavit of present assessee Shri Devender Kumar in which the present assessee has affirm his statement made to the Investigation Wing on 18.10.2013. Therefore the ld. CIT(DR) submitted that the assessee Shri Devender Kumar, on the one hand in order to support Mr. Trilok Chand Chaudhary, supported

Kirit Ramanlal Shah, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Pune

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

ITA 1030/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshalikirit Ramanlal Shah, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), C/O Acropolis, 3Rd Floor, Pune. 1076/20, Gokhale Road, Shivajinagar, Model Colony, Pune-411016 Pan: Adwps 9391 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas P. Bora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2023 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 31.07.2023 For A.Y.2012-13 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Without Considering Detailed Submissions Made By The Appellant In Respect Of Ground No.2 To 10 & Deciding The Case In Summary Manner Without Any Speaking Order On The Legal Issues Raised Which Goes To Root Of The Reassessment Proceedings. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Is Bad In Law As It Is Reopened On Basis Of Issue Which Is Thoroughly Discussed In Assessment Completed U/Sec. 143(3) Of The Act & Is Review Of Earlier Order Without Pinpointing Any Specific Failure On Part Of The Appellant To Disclose True & Correct Particulars In The Reasons Recorded & Without Any New Tangible Material & Hence The Reopening Of Assessment Is Invalid & Vitiated In Law As It Is Mere Change Of Opinion Which Is No Legally Justifiable. Kirit Ramanlal Shah

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

failed to appreciate that the ld. AO has erred in reopening the assessment based on information received from Investigation Wing of Department which constitutes an opinion and not tangible material which is necessary for reopening. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has failed ... just on the basis of applying the modus operandi of NMCE Scam, FMC Order dated 23/07/2021 on financial irregularities in NMCE, Information from the Investigation Wing of the Department, Ahmadabad and theory of preponderance of human probabilities/tax planning by 2 Kirit Ramanlal Shah generalizing it to the case of assessee

Starpoint Dealers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC- 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 661/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

assessee along with other group concerns/family members was subjected to search operations under section 132 of the Act on 09-03-2015 by the Investigation wing of the Income tax department. Consequent thereto, the assessments were completed in the hands of the assessee for the above said year under section ... read with section 153A of the Act. 2 Starpoint Dealers Pvt. Ltd. 3. The Kolkata investigation wing of the department had reported that many paper companies are indulging in providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital/share premium to various beneficiaries. It was noticed by the department that

ACIT, CC- 30, New Delhi vs. J H Jewellers LLP, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 809/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi M/S. J H Jewellers Llp, 13, Sunder Nagar Market, Kasturba Vs. Nagar, South East, Delhi 110003 Pan Aacfj 3285 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Shri Waseem Arshad, Cit(Dr) For Assessee: Shri U.N Marwah, Ca Shri Parveen Goel, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Cit(A)-30, New Delhi Dated 25.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- 1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts In Deleting The Rs.11,24,76,000/- Additions Of Rs. 32,50,00,000/- Made U/S 68 Of The It Act 1961. 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case Considering That As Per The Balance Sheet Of These Companies As On 31.03.2016, The Said Fund Were Available In The Balance Sheet Of All The Four Companies Under The Head "Cash & Cash Equivalents" As On 31.03.2015 Which Are Now Reflected In Current Investment In I.E. Investment As Capital In The Appellant Firm As On31.03.2016. Further, Relying On The Submission Of The Assessee That The Said Four Companies Introduced Funds In The Ay 2008-09, The Case Of Maharaja Tie Up, Dynamic Enclave & Shivshakti Commercial Pt Ltd Were Assessed W/S 147 Of The Act For A.Y. 2008-09 Accepting The Share Capital/Share Premium.

For Appellant: Shri U.N Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)

Section 68

Income Tax Act in the case of M/s J. H. Jewels Pvt. Ltd, commission us 131(1)(d) of the Act was issued to Investigation Wing Kolkata, it has been found that all the companies which become share holders in 3 companies in F.Y.2007-08 did not have creditworthiness to advance

New India Construction Co., Bally vs. ITO, WD-33(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 828/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 69C

before the AO from time to time details/evidences as called for by the AO. However, the AO, by relying on the report of the investigation wing to the effect directors of M/s. Gajgamini Sales Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Raipur Trading Pvt. Ltd. having admitted to be involved in providing accommodation ... have failed to carry out any enquiry or investigation into the bills/evidences filed by the assessee and simply relied on the report of the Investigation wing. In our opinion, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition without any substantive basis is wrong and cannot be sustained. Accordingly

New India Construction Co., Bally vs. ITO, WD-33(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 827/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 69C

Ellora Inratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

accommodation entry and the Assessing Officer had not made any proper inquiry and had not taken cognizance of search material circulated by Investigation Wing in the case of Jain Bros. In fact, no material in respect of these loans could have been found during search in the case of Jain ... working as director of the company. It may be mentioned here that search/survey operation us 132/133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted by Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department Delhi on 19.04.2010 at the residential and business premises of Shri Surender Kumar Jain and his brother Shri Virender Jain