← All Phrases

“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
97
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
90
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
81
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
78
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

Abhishek Ashok Lohade, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), Nashik

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

ITA 816/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.816/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Abhishek Ashok Lohade, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Nashik. 15, Subharda Hsg. Soc., Opp. Circle Cinema, Ashok Stambh, Nashik-422001. Pan : Acepl6296R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 21.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income From The Execution Of Contracts Etc. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Was Filed On 31.03.2015 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.3,13,680/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Nashik (‘The Assessing Officer’) Vide Order Dated 28.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

purchase of shares of SRK Industries Ltd. and subsequent sale is nothing but a bogus transaction by relying upon the investigation report by the Investigation Wing of the Department and the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The Assessing Officer had also analyzed the modus operandi adopted by the appellant ... sake of brevity, the modus operandi is discussed as under : The appellant was also provided the copy of statements recorded by the Investigation Wing of the Department, Calcutta from Shri Devesh Upadhyaya and Shri Akash Agrawal who are directors of the M/s. Mobixa Distributors Pvt. Ltd. alleged to be involved

Magan Vadhaji Prajapati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 19(2) (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1215/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Magan Vadhaji Prajapati बिधम/ Ito Ward-19(2)(3) Room No.15, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Building, Vs. 39/41, Kamal Niwas 1St & 2Nd Floor, Nana Bhandari Street, Mumbai- Chowk, Bhatia Hospital 400004. Lane, Javji Dadaji Marg, Grant Road West, Mumbai-400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Anwpp7146B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bharat Kumar Revenue By: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 22.03.2022 For Ay. 2011-12. The Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Is As Under: - 2. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Facts Whereas Some Suppliers Is Not Belonging To Assessee & Confirm The Addition Made By Ao. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Rs.17,38,432/- Which Was 12.5% Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.”

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi (Sr. AR)
Section 133Section 133(6)

have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the present case, on the basis of information received from investigation wing, Mumbai that assessee is one of the beneficiary of bogus purchases from parties who were found by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra ... opposes this prayer of assessee and submitted that if the assessee has not shown the purchases from these four (4) parties, and the investigation wing has received regarding the purchases, then it is a clear case of undisclosed transaction/undisclosed purchases, and consequently the entire undisclosed purchases ought to be added