“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

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Rohan Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 153A

directly or indirectly over and above the declared value." 4. Arun Kumar Bhansali vs. DC1T101 177 (JD) 1028 "There was sufficient time with the Investigation wing to carry on the investigation and to collect the evidence against the retraction. M/s. Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd. & ors However, records show that nothing

Rohan Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3801/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 153A

Registan Exim Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 21(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5877/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Registan Exim Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 835/836, Kucha Pati Ram, Ward 21(2), Sita Ram Bazar, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. Pan: Aaecr5891F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

total income of Rs.1,88,420/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Subsequently, information was received from the Investigation Wing, Unit-4, New Delhi that the assessee company has voluminous transaction with entities having varied business lines and showing miniscule income of Rs.1

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharaji Education Trust, Ghaziabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]–

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

soft-ware disc, DDIT was intimated vide letter dated 2.02.2015 about discrepancy in the working of unaccounted fees worked out by the Investigation Wing. On 13.03.2015, DDIT wrote back to the Assessing Officer that since all the seized and impounded material has been handed over to the Assessing Officer ... Mahalingam with respect to the several discrepancies pointed out by the ld. AR in the figures. She submitted that these are figures given by investigation wing , but not absolute figures based on which re- opening has been made. The figures are given by the Investigation Wing. The ld. DR supported

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cintec Steel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4455/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 68

allowing the appeal of the assessee. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that this is not a case where any report has been received from Investigation Wing of the Department or any such agencies. No cash has been deposited in the share applicants’ bank accounts. All payments have been made through ... Order is full of vague presumptions and conclusions made without any basis. This is not a case where any report has been received from Investigation Wing of the Department or any such agencies. No cash has been deposited in the share applicants’ bank accounts. All payments have been made through

Smt. Meenakshi Prakash Jadhav, Mumbai vs. ITO 21 (2)(3), Mumbai

Accordingly ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Meenakshi Prakash Jadhav, Income Tax Officer-21(2)(3), 175, 5Th Floor, 845, Shivneri Vs. Room No. 105, 1St Floor, Piramal Building, B.J. Marg, Byculla West, Chambers Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400011. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Acspj 3509 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Devendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay J. Sethi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay J. Sethi, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

acted judiciously in taking his decision. The A0 made the impugned addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on the basis of information received from the Investigation wing wherein during the course of survey action at the business premises of M/s Shah Housecon Put. Lid. on 11.11.2014 certain incriminating documents with details

ACIT 23(3), Mumbai vs. M/S the Salsette Catholic Co-Op. Housing Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3869/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

same was dismissed by observing and holding as under: “4.2.1 From the reasons recorded, I find that the AO has received information from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department that the stamp value of the sale/ conveyance deed, in respect of the transfer of land by the appellant

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1298/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for determination of income for A.Y 2011-12. Basis detailed enquiries made by the Investigation wing and material available on the assessment records, the Assessing officer stated that he has reason to believe that the income of Rs. 25 Crores ... advanced to the borrowers in cash, and they earned commission on these transactions. Further, various incriminating documents were found and seized by the Investigation wing of the Department, which includes loose papers, pen drives etc. On analysis of the seized documents particularly pen drives, it has been found that

Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

Malhan Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3149/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S Malhan Constructions Vs Dcit, Private Limited, Circle-6(1), Malhan One, Plot No.1, New Delhi Sunlight Colony, Ashram, New Delhi-110014 Pan-Aaecm5142L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Amitosh Moritra, C.A. Respondent By Sh. Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2021

Section 68

assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the additions have been sustained on the basis that there was some adverse comments by the Investigation Wing regarding the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of Ms. Neha Madan inadvertently done by mistake and even wrong ... submitted that the Assessing Officer has not carried out any independent inquiry by himself whether he was influenced by the reports submitted by the Investigation Wing. It was further submitted that the reasons for re- opening of the assessment was also on the basis that the Investigation Wing had stated

Shantilal Lachand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 18 (3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 5722/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5678/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2010-11) Income Tax Officer-18(3)(3), Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Shantilal Lalchand Jain, Room No.11-A, 1St Floor, Haji Kasam Building(No.645), Jss Road, Next To Allahabad Bank, Jambulwadi Corner, Dhobitalao, Mumbai 400 002 Pan: Aabpj9086G ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 5722/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2010-11) Shri Shantilal Lalchand Jain, Room No.11-A, 1St Floor, Haji Kasam Building(No.645), Jss Road, Next To Allahabad Bank, Jambulwadi Corner, Dhobitalao, Mumbai 400 002 Pan: Aabpj9086G ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-18(3)(3), Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

film production. The assessment in the case of assessee for assessment year 2010-11 was reopened on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai. As per the information received the assessee has obtained accommodation entries amounting to Rs.68,20,649/- from Ajinkya Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. During

Income Tax Officer-18(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Shantilal Lalchand Jain, Mumbai

ITA 5678/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Shree Ambey Forging Privat Limited, Panaji vs. ITO, Ward - (4), Panaji

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 389/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shrinivas Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92C

findings regarding transfer pricing issues in respect of international transactions or specified domestic transactions or both have been recorded by the Investigation Wing or the AO. 3.4 For cases to be referred by the AO to the TPO in accordance with paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 above, in respect of transactions

Scorpio Iron Ltd, Panaji vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Panaji

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 388/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shrinivas Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92C

Shri Subodh Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 674/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

approving authority who, before granting approval, is required to see all search material including incriminating material, seized documents, appraisal report, enquiries made by the investigation wing and various enquiries made I.T.(SS)A. No.674/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year:2015-16 3 by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and the replies

ITO, Ward- 6(3), New Delhi vs. Cozy Footwear Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 4284/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

well as M/s N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (42 Taxmann.com 339) (Del.), the Assessing Officer was in possession of adverse information from the Investigation Wing about the two companies being beneficiaries of accommodation entry providers and further in the case of Nipun Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the assessee ... show the nature and source of resources of the share subscribers. In the case of the appellant, there is no adverse information from the Investigation Wing regarding the appellant company being a beneficiary of entry providers and in order to prove the creditworthiness of the share subscriber, it not only

Madan Mohan Tiwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 29(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands

ITA 6925/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year : 2008-09 Madan Mohan Tiwari, Vs Income Tax Officer, J-145, Kalkaji, Ward-29(3), New Delhi-110019 Room No.1015, 10Th Floor, Block-E2, Dr. S.P. Mukharjee Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aeqpt1251F Appellant Respondent

Section 147

Assessing Officer dated 05.02.2013 are as follows M.M. Tiwary, 1451, Kalkaji, New Delhi A survey was conducted in this case on 23/04/2012 by Investigation Wing, Delhi wherein it is 5 | P a g e stated that Shri M. M. Tiwary Prop. Of M/s M.M. Engineering Services has received Rs.1.00 Crore ... Officer, Ward 22(1),New Delhi 4. A perusal of the above reasons recorded would show that the Assessing Officer had got information through Investigation Wing that the assessee has received Rs.1.60 crore from M/s M. M. Engineering Services. Further, the Assessing Officer after going through the AST System noted

Apoorva Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Jaipur

ITA 219/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 64

income being routed back in form of share capital. This shows that the Assessing officer has merely gone by the report of the DIT, Investigation Wing and the said report even didn’t have the statements of these persons which either find mention in the report or as enclosures when ... necessary nexus, however nothing of that sort has been done by the Assessing officer and he has merely gone by the report of DIT, Investigation Wing. It is true that the Assessing officer can rely on the report of DIT, Investigation Wing but at the same time, where

Krossover Entertainment Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 550/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

appellant Company. The appellants contend that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition merely relying on the information received from the Investigation Wing and no independent inquiries are conducted by the Assessing Officer and no evidences are brought on record to prove that the contribution made by the appellants ... donation : 7. In this case the Assessing Officer noted that a survey action was conducted in the HHBHRF by the Kolkata Directorate of the Investigation wing wherein it was found that the said entity did no conduct any research activity or any such activity which can be considered as scientific

Dy CIT 11 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Varesh Securities Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 262/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 262/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 263/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Dcit-11(3)(1) बिधम/ Varesh Securities Pvt. Ltd. Room No.427, Aayakar 101, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Marine Industrial Estate, New Link Lines, Mumbai-400020. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg1667L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 25.10.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2010-11 & 2012-13. Ita. Nos.262 & 263/Mum/2020 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sashi TulsiyanFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 148Section 68

accepted by the Revenue, no question of law arises." 6.2.7 I find that the Ld. AO has been guided by the report of the investigation wing prepared with respect to bogus capital gains transactions. However, it is observed that the Ld. AO have not brought out any part ... investigation wing report in which the appellant has been investigated and /or found to be a part of any arrangement for the purpose of generating bogus long term capital gains. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the persons investigated, including entry operators or stock brokers, have named