“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

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 723/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Years : 2010 – 11

For Appellant: Shri.KR.Pradeep CA along with Smt.Girija G.P.CAFor Respondent: Shri.Priyadarshi Mishra

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

space if left vacant intentionally ---- Page 4 of 16 ITA No.732/Bang/2016 Asst.Yr:2010-11 Page 5 of 16 ITA No.732/Bang/2016 Asst.Yr:2010-11 2.2. Subsequently, the Investigation Wing summoned assessee u/s131 of the Act and her statement was recorded on 24/09/2010. The relevant portion of statement recorded has been reproduced by Ld.AO ... which is reproduced by Ld.AO in assessment order. 2.5. Ld.AO in assessment order refers to the statement recorded by the investigation wing of assessee on 24/09/2010 wherein she stated that sources of the investments appearing in the seized documents were out of her undisclosed an unaccounted income earned

Akik Marketing India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on this legal issue which is contested by the assessee in Ground Nos

ITA 8884/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannua N D Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D. R

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69

Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29.09.2011 declaring an income of Rs. 8,60,660/-. After relying upon the report of Investigation Wing, proceedings were initiated u/s 147 of the Act after taking approval u/s 151 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2018. In response, assessee e- filed ... where the statement of searched persons were brought on records qua seized papers which vitiate the entire exercise. Moreover, only one sided version of investigation wing on seized material that too which is not found from assessee’s possession is submitted that it cannot be made as valid basis

M/S Suindu & Co., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 17(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1476/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1476/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2010-11) M/S. Suindu & Co., 33, Jupiter Building, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan: Aacfs5934P बनाम/ Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax-17(3), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms Smita Verma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Smita Verma

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 35A

Ld.ACIT-17(3), Mumbai in respect of donation of Rs.7,50,000/- given to Navjivan Charitable Trust on the basis of alleged information from investigation wing without any independent inquiry and without granting any opportunity for cross examination and without bringing any material evidence on record to conclusively prove that

Navin Jaidhand Doshi, Mumbai vs. DCIT-23(3), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5600/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5600/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 3Section 68

reassessment can be made just to make an enquiry or verification. b) Reassessment proceeding cannot be initiate merely on the information received from investigation wing. c) Reassessment proceeding cannot be initiated when the LD. CIT(A) have reason to suspect and not reason to believe. 3. On the facts

Ganapati Developers, Howrah vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-47, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 250Section 68

other hand opposed the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that information was received from the Investigation Wing of the Department and based on this information the AO believed that the assessee has taken bogus bills from M/s. Vasukinath Enterprises and M/s. Tarama Merchants ... submitted that a statement was recorded by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Kolkata on 10.05.2016 and from this statement it is clear that the assessee firm had taken accommodation entries by way of bogus bills and based on such concrete information, reasons for re-opening has been

Smt. Renu Garg, Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-7(3), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1278/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

present case also, the assessee suo moto surrendered an amount of Rs.37 lacs and paid the due tax alongwith interest thereon much before the Investigation Wing or the A.O. pointed out any discrepancy about the undisclosed or concealed income of the assessee. I , therefore, considering the facts of the present

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7277/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

right in applying the judgement of Diwali Capital Finance Pvt. Ltd. that additions were made only on basis of information of from investigation wing totally ignoring the proceedings carried out during reassessment. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... prima facie bogus financial transaction which has been done to suppress its profit. On the basis of above finding from the information provided by investigation wing and due diligence thereof from the records, it is found that assessee had accommodation entries. Further, this office has also examined the facts

DCIT Central Circle-7(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Wellknown Polysters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1388/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7276/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

Krish Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-14(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7610/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69

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 ... return was not filed as per database of Deptt., although it was already filed. Held (from head note) The information received from the investigation wing was not tangible material per se without a further enquiry having been undertaken by the AO, who had deprived himself of that opportunity that proceeding

Sh. Bikramjit Singh, Chandigarh vs. Pr. CIT-2, Chandigarh

ITA 878/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.878/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2009-10 Shri Bikramjeet Singh, The Pcit-2, बनाम Sco 33, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aeeps9345E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: ShriAjay Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. C Chandrakanta, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

indicate how he accepted the explanation of the assessee in the fact of contrary evidence provided to him in the data shared by the Investigation Wing. • The assessee in its reply filed before A.O. in two pages placed at Annexure-2 has provided only a generic reply

M/S Century Fiscal Services Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-5(1), Ludhiana

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 1204/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1204/Chd/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

Pharma India Ltd.( 2016) 384 ITR 147 & Pr.CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 which held that while report of the Investigation Wing might constitute material for the AO forming reasons to believe ,the process of arriving at such satisfaction could not be a mere repetition

Seawood Hospitality & Realty Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (CC) 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed on the legal aspect of quashing of reopening of assessment

ITA 92/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Justice P P Bhatt & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Seawoods Hospitality & Vs. Dcit(Cc)-3(4), Mumbai Realty Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor B/306-309, Business Dynasty Park Air India Building Jb Nagar, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Nariman Point Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No.Aamcs1472M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Sukaniya Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit (Cc)-3(4), B/306-309, Business Dynasty Mumbai Park, J B Nagar, Opp. Sangam Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor Cinema, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059 Air India Building Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 Pan/Gir No. Aadcs9585J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Seawood Hospitaly & Realty P. Ltd. & M/S. Sukaniya Properties P. Ltd.

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

Addl.CIT & Anr.(Del) (333 ITR 146)  Shalimar Buildcon (P) Ltd. Vs ITO ITAT Jaipur (136 TTJ 701) wherein it was held that information from investigation Wing ' notice u/s. 148 issued on the basis of such letter'.” 5.3. We find that the reopening in the instant case has been made beyond ... Shalimar Buildcon 136 TTJ 701 wherein it was held that the notice u/s.148 of the Act could be issued based on information from Investigation Wing about tainted transactions carried out by the assessee. M/s. Seawood Hospitaly and Realty P. Ltd., & M/s. Sukaniya Properties P. Ltd., 5.11. We find that

Jajoo Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(3) Cen RG 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 1142/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

limited company from Private Limited Company as on 31.01.2008. A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the act was conducted by the Ahmedabad Investigation Wing in the case of M/s. Rolta India Ltd. and its group cases covering business and residential premises of the associated persons on 29/04/2010. Simultaneously ... also made available copies of Statement of Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah recorded on oath u/s.132(4) of the I.T.Act, as obtained from the Investigation Wing, for cross- examination. 8. Thereafter the Assessing Officer noted the following submission of the assessee:- “In response to the aforesaid show cause, the assessee, through

Ankita Mardia, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-9(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

ITA 9/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.9/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mrs.Ankita Mardia, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2B, Satrunjay Apartments, Non-Corporate Ward-9(1), 42/57, Vepery, Chennai. Chennai-600 034. Pan:Adgpa7764A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

case has been subsequently reopened under section 147 of the Act on the basis of the information received from Investigation Wing, Kolkata that the assessee had dealt in shares of M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd., which was held to be penny stock and all transactions of purchase and sale

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Garg Acrylics Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6834/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 68

three short statements made by the MD of the company during the course of the statement recorded u/s 133A before the investigation wing, without having entire trading activity of the appellant company was bogus. 6.9 Besides this, the appellant's plea was that its trading activity included consignment sale

Ins Finance & Investment P Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 12(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9266/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, Sr.D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(1)Section 68

same is illegal and without jurisdiction. (v) That in any case, reasons being merely on the basis of information from investigation wing and in absence of any independent tangible material to establish the case of escapement of income, the reasons recorded are uncorroborated, unsubstantiated and based on erroneous presumption ... statements were reproduced in the assessment order of M/s. Prraneta as well as Shri Shirish Shah. Thereafter, he observed certain inquiries done by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata with regard to share capital received from Kolkata based companies and also the information and inquiries done by the Investigation Wing, I.T.A. No.9266

Sanjeev Malhotra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi

ITA 6723/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Justice P. P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Though Video Conferencing) Through Video Conferencing Shri Sanjeev Malhotra Dcit, Vs. 10/81, Punjabi Bag West Circle-24(2), New Delhi- 110026 New Delhi Pan Aagpm3216Q

For Appellant: Shri Ajay WadhwaFor Respondent: Shri H K Chaudhary

Section 147Section 148Section 68

Agrotech Ltd, which were immediately followed by large value RTGS transfer favouring a person named Sanjeev Malhotra. The account was closed on 7.02.2009. The investigation wing issued summons u/s 131 (1A) to Sri Sanjeev Malhotra requiring to produce the documents/detail/evidence to verify the suspicion rose in the STR. The assessee ... also lodged a formal complaint against the assessee with police. On the basis of the above statement and information received from the investigation wing, the learned AO observed that the assessee had received an accommodation entry of ₹ 4 crores in account of the assessee which represents unexplained credit under

I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Sr Engineering Corporation, Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1586/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

admitted that he was the operator of various entities to provide bogus bills to various beneficiaries in lieu of commission. As found by the Investigation Wing, the assessee was one of such beneficiaries and had received the bogus bills from the fake entities of Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh as under ... basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessments for all the relevant four years that is A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and notices u/s 148 were issued by him to the assessee after recording the reasons. In reply

I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata vs. S.R.Engineering Corporation, Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1585/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148