“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

ACIT, CC- 19, New Delhi vs. Jay Ambay Aromatics, Jammu

Accordingly ground number 2 and 3 of the appeal of the learned AO are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5070/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – DR

Section 133(6)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 80I

year 2008 – 09. Therefore facts for this year. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the income tax act was conducted by the investigation wing of the department on 20/01/2014 on M/s Sharp group of cases. The business premises of the assessee were also covered. The main allegation against

ACIT, CC- 19, New Delhi vs. Jay Ambay Aromatics, Jammu

Accordingly ground number 2 and 3 of the appeal of the learned AO are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5069/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – DR

Section 133(6)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 80I

ACIT, CC- 19, New Delhi vs. Jay Ambay Aromatics, Jammu

Accordingly ground number 2 and 3 of the appeal of the learned AO are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5034/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – DR

Section 133(6)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 80I

ACIT, CC- 19, New Delhi vs. Jay Ambay Aromatics, Jammu

Accordingly ground number 2 and 3 of the appeal of the learned AO are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5033/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – DR

Section 133(6)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 80I

ACIT, CC- 19, New Delhi vs. Jay Ambay Aromatics, Jammu

Accordingly ground number 2 and 3 of the appeal of the learned AO are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5031/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – DR

Section 133(6)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 80I

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bbn Transportation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6176/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Section 147Section 148Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961: 19.09.2011: A survey operation was conducted on 3 March 2010 by the officers of the Investigation wing of the Income Tax Department on the corporate office address of M/s Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. i.e. 315, E-Block, 3rd Floor, International Trade Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi ... nutshell, the identical reasons recorded by the A.O. state that during the course of the survey operation conducted by the Investigation Wing at the corporate office of the assessees, it was found that the said premises was run, occupied & controlled by the management of Bhushan Group, where all the staff

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6174/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Section 147Section 148Section 68

Amit H Patel (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC 3((4), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 5762/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harith, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

appeal of the assessee on this issue by holding and observing as under: “5.3 The assessee was covered u/s. 132 on 09.04.2015 by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, after being armed with such huge adverse evidences against the assessee. It is also relevant to note that the assessee was allotted preferential

Sri. Kushalraj Gulecha, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 288/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri G.S Prashanth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147

section 143(3) of the Act, on 28/01/2014, accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the case was reopened on the basis of information received from investigation wing, and the Ld.AO completed the reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 by making an addition of Rs.20,00,000/- as unexplained ... alleged cash payment / donation of Rs. 20 lakhs to M/s Judutt Kushal Suri Khadhar Gachha Pedhi Trust, during the year under consideration. The departmental investigation wing conducted a survey operation at Ahmadabad in the case of M/s Kalavati Finance, Page 5 of 9 wherein it was found that the appellant

Shrimati Ravinder Bawa, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 703/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69A

provided to the assessee vide letter dated 20.3.2018 (page 204) wherein it was mentioned that “a TEP in assessee case was received from the investigation wing through the Joint Commissioner date 27/3/2017.As per Bank statements of assesses account no 024200PC00037676 an amount of Rs 4.5 cr has been credited ... income for the AY 2011-12 is filed by the assessee or not. A TEP in assessee’s case was received from the investigation wing through the JCIT, Range -2, Jalandhar vide his office letter no. 2069 dated 27.3.2017. As per bank statements of assessee’s account no. 024200PC00037676

Mr Jitesh Banwari Bhargav, Mumbai vs. ITO 24 (2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7908/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7908/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Jitesh Banwari Bhargav Ito-24(2)(2) बनाम/ Room No.514, 5Th Floor B/501, Pratik, Jp Road Opp. Dhake Colony, D.N.Nagar, Piramal Chambers Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053 Parel, Mumbai - 400012 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afvpb-3415-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Girish Dave-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri S.S.Iyengar – Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 16/04/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 12/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Iyengar – Ld. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

conversion of shares received by the assessee upon amalgamation of M/s STL & M/s SAL. The assessee also submitted that investigation carried out by the investigation wing was general in nature and do not cover the assessee in specific. It was also submitted that the shares were not sold ... this fact and accordingly, placed the sale order on stock exchange though brokers. The allegations of Ld. AO were backed by the findings of investigation wing. The facts of the case were found to be similar to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay

Asst CIT 6 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. India Steel Works Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly. Appellant gets part relief. This ground is partly allowed

ITA 6995/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6995/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 7057/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) The Asst. Commissioner Of India Steel Works Ltd. 1101, 11 Th Floor, India Bull Income Tax 5Th Floor, Room No. 506, Aayakar फनाभ/ Finance Centre, S.B. Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Elphistone (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci1362A अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-12, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal Nos. Cit(A)-12/Dcit-6(3)(1)/367/16-17 & Cit(A)- 12/Dcit-6(3)(1)/B2-393/16-17 Vide Dated 17.07.2019 & 27.08.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, CIT DRFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)

billets, hot rolls/ Bars, wire rods and also manufacturing the same on job work basis for others. The Assessing Officer received information from Investigation Wing and Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra that the assessee has obtained accommodation bills in respect of purchases made from hawala concerns amounting to Rs.6

Manish Pengoriya, Noida vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Noida

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

ITA 2513/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 249(1)(a)Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in completing the assessment on the basis of satisfaction borrowed only from report of Investigation wing with pre-conceive mind which is bad-in-law and therefore addition made is liable to be deleted. 6. That the Appellant craves

ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4049/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

question was to be assessed. From the above, it is clear tot to A.O. has simply relied upon on the information received from investigation wing and therefore, there is non application of mind by the A.O. Further, it is also clear, that the A.O. has resorted to Protective assessment only

ITO 28 (3)(5), Mumbai vs. Shri. Yusuf Ahmed Solanki (Proprietor of, /S Sayco Enerprises), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6837/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

this purchase, an amount of ` 29,53,032, has been effected from M/s. Ronak Enterprises. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department, which revealed that the assessee had taken accommodation bill for purchase through the above party which was declared as hawala operator

M/S K'S Jewellery & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT 24 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in similar fashion

ITA 7509/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh– Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Jain (partner of M/s Sun Diam) confirming the purchase transactions with the assessee. 2.2 However, going by the statements made by the parties before investigation wing during search operations, the explanation furnished by the assessee was not to be accepted in terms of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

Brij Resources Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 5(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8835/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

declaring the total income at Rs.7,380/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act. Subsequently, information was received from the Investigation Wing that during the course of search and survey action in the case of Jain brothers, namely, Virendra Jain and Surendra Kumar Jain ... considered the various decisions cited before me. I find, 5 the AO in the instant case, on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee has received accommodation entry in the form of sale of investment of Rs.10 lakh during the F.Y. 2009-10, relevant

Pv Corporate Advisory Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 19(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8027/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Pv Corporate Advisory Services Vs. Ito, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-19(3), C/O Rohit Tiwari, New Delhi. 8024, Ats Greens Paradiso, Chi Iv, Noida. Pan: Aadcp7328L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th May, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

perusal of the reasons so recorded by the AO clearly indicates that he has blindly relied on the information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department, treating the same as gospel truth without making any effort to correlate the same with the return of income filed by the assessee ... already filed on 30th September, 2011. Therefore, the reasons recorded without independent application of mind by the AO to the information received from the Investigation Wing shows that the same are without proper satisfaction on the part of the AO. The reasons recorded has to indicate in what manner

DCIT 6 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Blbir Metals and Power Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7870/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Co No. 59/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 7870/Mum/2019) A.Y 2010-11 Dcit – 6(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Balbir Metals & Room No. 506, 5Th Power Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 423, Nav Vyapar Mk Road, Mumbai. Bhavan, Pd Mello Road Carnac Bunder, Masjid East, Mumbai – 400009. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb0452D Appellant/Respondent .. Respondent/Appellant Shri Chandra Vijay, Dr Appellant By : Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala, Ca Ar Date Of Hearing 17.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-12, Mumbai Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objections . First, We Shall Take Up The Revenue Appeal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

failed to appreciate the fact that in this case, the A.O had received a specific and credible information from investigation wing, Mumbai, according to which the assessee company had taken accommodation entries in the form of share application money from Mukesh Chokshi and Group which it failed to prove during ... creditworthiness and genuineness of the investments of the investor companies .Further the A.O has made the addition based on the credible information from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai that these companies are floated for providing accommodation entries and supported the order of the A.O and prayed for allowing the revenue appeal

Kishorkumar Mohanlal Vyas HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-29(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2683/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

returns filed were processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessing officer received information from the Sales-tax department through the Investigation Wing indicating that the assessees are beneficiaries of accommodation entries by way of non genuine purchase bills issued by certain entities identified as hawala operators ... learned departmental representative submitted, after completion of original assessment in assessment year 2009-10, the assessing officer received specific information from the Investigation Wing indicating that certain purchases made by the assessee are non genuine. Thus, based on such fresh and tangible information and material available on record, the assessing