“investigation wing”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 14712,584 judgments

The decision most relied on for investigation wing is Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (329 ITR 110), cited in 217 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on investigation wing

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.

PCIT v. M/s. Kesoram Industries 57

417 ITR 334 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment completed under Section 143(3) cannot be reopened after four years solely based on third-party information or opinions, such as from an Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer applying their own independent mind to the material and having new, independent material on record.

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.

Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

91 Taxmann.com 119 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is justified in reopening assessment proceedings based on information received from the Investigation Wing, even when recording findings also rely on documents already on record, provided all procedural requirements for reassessment are met.

Judgments citing investigation wing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Hari Narain Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 748/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

such short term price of shares of these companies cannot jump so high and also apprised the assessee with information received from Income Tax Investigation Wing of Kolkata in relation to some share transactions as dubious and asked explanation from Shri Bitthal Das Parwal about high profit on sale ... account of unsecured loans and partners’ capital under section 68 being unexplained cash credit solely on the basis of the information received from Investigation Wing Kolkata. It is pertinent to note that the said information was available with the AO prior to the search conducted under section

Mr. Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

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

ITA 516/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemr. Bhavesh Kantilal Vs. Pcit-20 Kubadia Room No. 418, 7, 2Nd Floor, Neminath 4Th Floor, Bldg, Sk Bole, Dadar Piramal Chamber (W), Mumbai – 400028 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agrpk2377D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Rakesh Garg, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Rakesh Garg, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 68Section 69

issued. Whereas the A.O. has dealt on the facts, trading in shares, reports of the investigation wing and the submissions of the assessee in response to show cause notice and determined the total income with the denial of exemption of Long Term Capital gains u/sec10

ACIT, Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Creo Lifestyles P. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1163/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 6(2)(1) Vs. M/S Creo Lifestyle Pvt Room No. 504, Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, 161, 2Nd Floor, Starcity Mk Road, Manmala Tank Road, Mumbai – 4000 020 Mahim West Mumbai – 400016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci8961N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani.Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

dismissing the SLP of that assesee. (iii). The information was generated by Maharashtra Sales Tax Department and received through the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. As such, the case squarely falls under the exception 10(e) of Circular No. 312018 dated 1110712018 and amendment thereto dated

M/S.Ims, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 4016/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Ims V. Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) Level One, Grand Bella Vista 19Th Floor, Air India Building S.V. Road, Bandra (W) Nariman Point Mumbai - 400050 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafi0407M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Dharmveer Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharmveer Singh

Section 133A

contentions of the appellant, as also the order of the AO. It is observed that survey action u/s 133A was conducted by the Investigation Wing on IMS group on 26.11.2015, wherein various unaccounted sales transactions were unearthed. The amount of unaccounted sales transactions for the relevant year

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rathi Graphics Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly. Resultantly the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 767/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Vs. M/S. Rathi Graphics Circle-15(1), Technologies Ltd, Cr Building, Ip Estate, 24/1A, Mohan Cooperative New Delhi Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacr3276L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain,Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, Ld. CIT DR

Section 132Section 153Section 250Section 251Section 68

overlooked by him. However this fact never been denied by him also.AO simply remained stuck with the observations of the investigation wing. -At point no 5.5 of the remand report dated 12.11.2018, AO has recorded his findings that source of source of the share application money was not the shareholders

Amit Jindal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 59(3), New Delhi

ITA 1547/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2015-16] Amit Jindal, Ito-59(3), 105, Defence Enclave, D-Block, Delhi-110092 Vs Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi -110002 Pan-Aflpj2122A Assessee Revenue

Section 10(38)

order dt.20.12.2017,even without disputing the explanations and evidence on record, and which are totally based on a general information provided by investigation wing on suspicious LTCG but nothing to do or even a whisper or any tangible material towards the Appellant. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified ... shares. 6 Copy of bank acc. The amount 18-19 credited after realization from broker. 6.1. He submitted that the investigation by the Investigation Wing or SEBI does not link to the assessee or his broker so far as the instant transactions are concerned. Referring to the decision

Saraf Silk Exports (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir.-3(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 545/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Saraf Silk Exports (P) Income Tax Officer, Ltd. Ward-3(3), Kolkata Vs. 37A, Bentink Street, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. Pan: Aadcs 6803 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)- 17, Kolkata For A.Y. 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 16.09.2020. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148

reproduced as under: i. That the Ld. Assessing Officer was grossly erred in reopening the assessment merely on the basis of information from Investigation Wing. ii. That the reopening of assessment made by Ld. AO is not at as per law. 2 Saraf Silk Exports ... additional ground of appeal taken. 12.8. a) It could be seen that Ld. Assessing Officer merely on the basis of information from Investigation Wing proceeded to reopen the assessment without independently applying his mind and forming the belief that income has escaped assessment. b) Our this submission gets strength that

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Radaan Media Works (I) Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1908/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 09.02.2022

Section 143(3)Section 147

रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs M/s. Radaan Media Works (I) Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-2(1), 10, (Old No.3), Investigation Wing, Paul Appasamy Street, Chennai-600 034. T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. PAN: AABCR 3815L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CIT अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant

Asstt. CIT - CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. Mangal Buildhome P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 567/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Shree Ratna Mangal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.302, 3Rd Floor 903, 9Th Floor Chinatamani Arcade, Dhanji Street Pratishtha Bhavan Mumbai - 400003 Old Cgo Building Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Pan: Aapcs6589J Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Mangal Buildhome Pvt. Ltd., 903, 9Th Floor A.1701-1702, Lotus Corporate Park Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pratishtha Bhavan Old Cgo Building Annexe Pan: Aagcm5420M Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd., 903, 9Th Floor 202, 2Nd Floor Chinatamani Arcade Pratishtha Bhavan Opp. Bombay Bullion Building Old Cgo Building Annexe Dhanji Street, Mumbai - 400003 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcm2672M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

643/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2012-13) M/s. Mangal Buildhome Pvt. Ltd., & others Orders wherein Assessing Officer has brought on record various findings unearthed by the investigation wing. 8. Further, he submitted that PKJ has accepted that he is giving accommodation entries to various parties. Further, he brought to our notice Page

Asstt. CIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Ratna Mangal Jewels P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 566/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

Mirage Ceramics Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2630/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Mirage Ceramics Private Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, D Wing, Trade Income Tax World 12(3)(2) Senapati Bapat Marg , Aykar Bhavan Vs. Kamla Mill Compound, M K Road Mumbai -400 013 Mumbai 20 Pan Aaecm2513R (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafd0295J

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C T Mathew SR DR

Section 131Section 133Section 143Section 68

stated that the name of the depositor has changed and the address of the depositor is now also different. The same commission of the investigation wing of the income tax, Calcutta was given commission however the report was received that even at the new address no such entity was found

Davinder Kaur Marwah, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-40(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 8671/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151(1)

dt.28.01.2019 has observed as under:- “5.1 A perusal of the reasons shows that the Assessing Officer has clearly borrowed the information received from the Investigation Wing but he has not carried out any verification to test the veracity of the information which has been passed by the Investigation Wing. Thus ... return of income which has been found to be factually incorrect. Even though there was a tangible material or information coming from the investigation wing, but Assessing Officer on the said material/ information received has to apply his mind after verifying the assessment records and after due application of mind

Aakash Impex, Surat vs. ITO-2(3)(7), Majura Gate, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 200/SRT/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143Section 147

various documentary evidences furnished by assessee. The ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO. The ld. CIT-DR submits that Investigation Wing, Mumbai made a search on Bhanwarlal Jain Group. During the search and after search, the Investigation Wing made a thorough investigation and concluded that ... made any comment on the documentary evidence furnished by assessee. The AO solely relied upon the statement of third party and the report of Investigation Wing. The report of wing and the statement of Bhanwarlal Jain were not provided to the assessee. The AO has not disputed the sales

M/S. Mahalaxmi Saws Pvt. Ltd., H-39, Road No.2B, Riico Industrial Area, Sirsi Road, Bindayaka, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

loan creditor company as "active", confirmation of loan given to the assessee. - except the statement of Shri Anand Sharma and the report of the investigation Wing Kolkata, the AO has not brought on record any other material to controvert or disprove the documentary evidence produced by the assessee

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

appellant and observed that the appellant failed to furnish the supporting documentary evidence to support that the purchases were actually made by them. The Investigation Wing of Mumbai had provided a list of hawala bill racketeers who were involved in issuing bills and also the list of beneficiaries. The Sales

Kuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 582/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrir. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: ShriHemant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 68

assessee company. The summons returned unserved. Further enquiries were made issuing commission u/s 131 (1A) of the act and information was gathered from investigation wing that the share deposit company is not physically existing at the given address 125/1, cotton Street, Kolkata – 700007 whereas the correct address of this company ... company who deposited share capital with the assessee was not appearing in the statement. Further, in none of the other statements recorded by the investigation wing Kolkata, the name of the company who deposited money with the assessee was appearing. During the course of appellate proceedings before the learned

Kuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 581/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrir. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: ShriHemant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 68

JCIT (OSD), Ghaziabad vs. M/S Sarvhit Trust, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 2745/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Manu Chourasia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri K. Sampath, Ld. Adv

Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C

lakhs as unexplained expenditure u/s 69 of the Act. 2.4 Further, it was also gathered by the AO that On verification/investigation by the Investigation Wing it was unearthed that the trust had received loan of Rs. 2.94 cores from Nishyam Farms (P) Ltd. which remained unpaid and therefore

Shri Shri Tarun Pugalia Jain, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Raipur (Cg)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 272/BIL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 272/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Tarun Pugalia Jain Shop No.9, Kamala Super Bazar, Telghani Naka, Station Road, Raipur (C.G). Pan : Aacch4665D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Raipur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

initiated against the assessee was rightly quashed by the Tribunal. The High Court while concluding as hereinabove observed that while the report of the Investigation Wing might constitute the material on the basis of which the A.O forms the reasons to believe, but the process of arriving at such satisfaction/belief ... cannot be a mere repetition of the report of the Investigation wing. As observed by the Hon’ble High Court, the reasons to believe must demonstrate link between the tangible material and the formation of the belief or the reason to believe that the income of the assessee chargeable

Smt. Gurjeet Kaur, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- IV (2), Jalandhar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 628/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69Section 91

agreement to sell is not a dumb document and authenticity of the same stands established in the course of enquiries conducted by the investigation wing. Accordingly, I hold that AO was justified in treating an amount of Rs. 1.50 crores as unexplained money of the appellant