“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

Shree Prakash Chhawachharia (HUF), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1622/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

verified the evidences/documents filed evidences/documents filed and has only relied on general observations made by the observations made by the Investigation Wing of the Department Investigation Wing of the Department and made the disallowance. He prayed for relief. . He prayed for relief. 6. The ld. D/R, on the other hand

ITO 19 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Rajesh M Chauhan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 4968/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma

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

assessee was initially processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the Sales Tax Department through Investigation Wing that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation bills provided for purchases worth ` 37,16,912. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer

ACIT Circle-22(1), Mumbai vs. Chandraprakash Sharma HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 4966/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma

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

assessee was originally completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the Sales Tax Department through the Investigation Wing indicating that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation bills provided by certain parties towards purchases worth ` 84,46,199. On the basis

Nikita Synfab Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. - 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7151/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

income filed by the assessee was initially processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing that in course of a search and seizure operation carried out in case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain Group on 1st October

ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana vs. M/S. Akash Developers, Mehsana

ITA 430/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) (Through Virtual Court)

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R

Section 144A

furnished its return of income for the Asstt. Year 2008-09 on 20/01/2009 showing "NIL" income. Later on as per information received from the investigation wing of Income Tax Department it was known that during the period relevant to the Asstt. Year uhder consideration the assessee has purchased a land ... property was Rs 10,95,98,922 /- because firstly as per the copy of document titling " Banakahat Karar Lekh dated 06/01/2007", received from the Investigation Wing, Mehsana, an agreement was made between - (i) Sardar ( Mehsana) Owners Association, Mehsana & Partners of the assessee firm as seller and (ii) Svs Revabhai Shankerbhai

Kaustubhbhai Dhirajlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 210/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divetia, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, SR. DR

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

said claim of the assessee was rejected by the AO on the basis of the outcome of the survey action carried out by Investigation Wing, Kolkata on 27.01.2015 in the office of the said institution and on the modus operandi of the said institution which is appearing at Paragraph

ACIT-28(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Shreekant Gwaldas Damani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 5191/MUM/2019[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K.Pradhan ()

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

filed his return of income on 30-09-2011 declaring total income of Rs.31,03,750/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing that purchases worth Rs15,99,557/- shown to have been made from two parties are non genuine, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under

M/S J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3449/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. J. Kumar Dy. Cit, Infraprojects Ltd., Central Circle-5(1), 16A, Andheri Industrial Mumbai Estate, Vs. Veera Desasi Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacj9161C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jt. Cit (Osd) Cc-5(1), M/S. J. Kumar R.No.1926, Infraprojects Ltd., 19Th Floor, 16A, Andheri Industrial Air India Bldg., Vs. Estate, Nariman Point, Veera Desasi Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacj9161C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai, D.R

Section 37(1)Section 69C

Deccan Cement Ltd. which has been disallowed. 5.6. The assessing officer has primarily based his conclusion on the view taken by the investigation wing in the course of search action. The main issue raised was the documentation maintained in respect of purchases from Ambuja Cements Ltd., which was treated

M/S.Framroze Marketing Co. Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms aforesaid

ITA 6650/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman. आअसं. 6650/मुं/2018 ("न.व.2011-12) M/S.Framroze Marketing Co. Private Limited, Unit No.9, 3Rd Floor, Prabhadevi Industrial Estate, Veer Savarkar Marg, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai 400 025 Pan: Aaacf5027B बनाम/ Vs. The Acit -6(3)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 : ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subramaniyan

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

industrial equipments. The assessment 2 in the case of assessee for assessment year 2011-12 was reopened on the basis of information received by Investigation Wing that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries/ bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs.8,83,970/- from various (six) hawala dealers. In reassessment proceedings

Chetan Rajnikant Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-24(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1948/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodchetan Rajnikant Shah Income Tax Officer-24(1)-4, 703, Jamuna Vihar, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Juhu Lane, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400058 Pan – Amqps6037D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

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. Yamuna Mundhra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-30(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 568/KOL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69C

gave bogus purchase bills to the client without actual delivery of diamonds and thus facilitating accommodation entries for bogus purchase. According to the AO, Investigation Wing of the Department got the documentary evidence from the group searched on 03.10.2013 that assessee took bogus accommodation entry of purchase from M/s. Vitrag ... rebutted the documents filed by the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction. The AO has simply noted the Investigation Wing’s information that Shri Rajendra Jain has admitted during search that he was an accommodation entry provider and did not supply the diamonds and instead gave only bills

Shri Hasmukhlal Inderchand Ranawat, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 3279/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3279/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Hasmukhlal Inderchand Ranawat Income Tax Officer-18(1)(4) बनाम/ Room No.203, 2Nd Floor 32/33, Dagina Bazar Mumbadvi Road, Mumbadevi Earnest House, Ncpa Marg Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpr-2925-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Deshpande-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/12/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 19/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande-Ld. DR

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

transactions were genuine in nature and eligible for exemption u/s 10(38). 4.3 However, in the background of investigation carried out by Kolkata / Mumbai investigation wing in the matter of penny stocks, it was alleged by Ld. AO that gains were pre-arranged, premeditated and bogus. The true of nature ... commission allegedly paid against these transactions. Proceedings before Ld. CIT(A) 5.1 Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee maintained that the findings of investigation wing and the observations of Ld. AO were general observation without any specific reference to the transactions of the assessee. These findings had no connection

Bishan Sharup Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 45(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 8083/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. D.R

Section 131Section 147Section 148

relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. In the present case the A.O. received information from Investigation Wing that assessee being a proprietary concern maintained Bank Account of M/s. Yogesh Trading Co., New Delhi with Mahamegha Urban Cooperative Bank bearing Account No.xxxxx13022

Trn Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 7991/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 68

assessment order. Thus, the basis for reopening of the assessment and making addition against the assessee was on the basis of statement recorded by Investigation Wing of Shri Deepak Agarwal and Shri Mukesh Kumar implicating the assessee company of providing accommodation entries 7 ITA.No.7991/Del./2019 TRN Impex

Shri Uma Shanker Dhandhania, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer - 1(5), Kanpur

ITA 475/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

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

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 143(3)

scrip involved in these appeals is M/s Sulabh Engineers and Services Ltd. and Income Tax Department on the basis of an investigation report by investigation wing had held gains from this scrip and many other scrips as bogus and had therefore made the additions by treating the long term capital ... their unaccounted money into accounted money after managing long term capital gains from certain scrips with the help of intermediaries. It was submitted that investigation wing of the department had carried out extensive investigation after recording statements of various brokers and such brokers had admitted that such scrips were used

M/S Shailesh Jain HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6068/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Shailesh Jain Huf, Vs. Ito 19(3)(3), 2Nd Floor, 2405, Panchratna, Opera House, Matru Mandir Bldg., Mama Parmanand Marg, Grant Road, Charni Road, Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaihs3182H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Smt. Kritika Rajendra Jain, Vs. Ito 19(3)(3), 2Nd Floor, 2405, Panchratna, Opera House, Matru Mandir Bldg., Mama Parmanand Marg, Grant Road, Charni Road, Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No. Agspj9797K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

6068/M/2019 & I TA No.7064/M/2019 M/s. Shailesh Jain HUF& Smt. Kritika Rajendra Jain M/s. Four K Animation Ltd. on the basis of information from Kolkata Investigation Wing that the assessee is a beneficiary of long term capital gain on sale of penny stocks which are suspicious and bogus as revealed during ... alleging that the appellant has arranged bogus LTCG by trading in penny stock company on the basis of :i) investigation report of directorate of investigation wing, Kolkata; ii) alleged bogus LTCG resulting from steep movement of share prices etc detailed in the assessment order.; iii) statements recorded by the directorate

M/S. Pushpa Navratan Ranawat, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5461/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5461/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ms. Pushpa Navratan Ranawat Income Tax Officer-18(2)(5) बनाम/ Room No.306, 3Rd Floor 32/33, Dagina Bazar Mumbadvi Road, Mumbadevi Earnest House, Ncpa Marg Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpr-3149-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Deshpande-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/12/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 16/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande-Ld. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

transactions were genuine in nature and eligible for exemption u/s 10(38). 4.3 However, in the background of investigation carried out by Kolkata / Mumbai investigation wing in the matter of penny stocks, it was alleged by Ld. AO that profits earned by the beneficiaries were beyond human probabilities. After analyzing ... assessee against these transactions was estimated @0.5%. Proceedings before Ld. CIT(A) 5.1 Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee maintained that the findings of investigation wing and the observations of Ld. AO were general observation without any specific reference to the transactions of the assessee. These findings had no connection

ITO 26(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Shri. Gul Naraindas Mulchandani, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 4937/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Sitaram PareekFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma

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

regular course which were processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the Sales Tax Department through Investigation Wing to the effect that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation bills by way of non–genuine purchases amounting

ACIT 18(3), Mumbai vs. Vikas J Solanki, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and the cross-objection filed by assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 3763/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3763 & 3764/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Acit 18(3) बिधम/ Vikas J. Solanki R. No.609, 6Th Floor, Earnest 101/102 D Plaza 3Rd Agiary Vs. House, Nariman Point, Lane Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- Mumbai-400021. 400003. C. O. Nos. 54 & 55/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. Nos.3764/Mum/2019 & 3763/Mum/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2011-12) बिधम/ Vikas J. Solanki Acit 18(3) R. No.609, 6Th Floor, Earnest 101/102 D Plaza 3Rd Agiary Vs. House, Nariman Point, Lane Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- Mumbai-400021. 400003. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps4197A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Achanliya (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -29, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2011-12 & 2012-13. Ita. No.3763/Mum/2019 & C.O. No. 55/Mum/2020

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Achanliya (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 69C

issued by conveying the following reasons: - “Information has been received from the office of the Director General of Income tax (Investigation) Mumbai that the Investigation Wing has carried out Search & Seizure action u/s 132 of the Income tax Act, 1961 on Shri Jain Group, Sanjay Choudhary Group & Dharmichand Jain Group ... statement is hereby reproduced as under.:- “Information has been received from the office of the Director General of Income tax (Investigation) Mumbai that the Investigation Wing has carried out Search & Seizure action u/s 132 of the Income tax Act, 1961 on Shri Jain Group, Sanjay Choudhary Group & Dharmichand Jain Group

Pkc Securities, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-35(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2399/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 151

from the above it has been settled by the judicial precedence that the AO must possess the materials on the basis of which the Investigation Wing of the Department had passed on the information to the AO about escapement of income. Recently in the case of Sabh Infrastructure ... through bogus entities. From a reading of 4th Para(supra) it is discerned that investigation was made 17. by the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata from which it is noticed that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of bogus profit / loss and booked a profit