“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

Asst CIT CC 1 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S B & M Buildcon, Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7472/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6673/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6674/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. B & M Buildcon Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) V-Time Square, Level 13 Room No.903, 9Th Floor बिाम/ Plot No.3, Sector-15 Pratishtha Bhavan Vs. Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur Old Cgo Bdg. (Annexe) Navi Mumbai- 400 614. M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfb-6551-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7472/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit-Central Circle-1(1) M/S. B & M Buildcon Room No.903, 9Th Floor V-Time Square, Level 13 बिाम/ Pratishtha Bhavan Plot No.3, Sector-15 Vs. Old Cgo Bdg. (Annexe) Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. Navi Mumbai- 400 614. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfb-6551-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman-Ld. Cit- Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/02/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman-Ld. CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

that during the course of search the shares certificates relating to these parties were not seized rather these are submitted by assessee before the investigation wing during inquiry proceedings carried out in lieu of search under section 132 of the Act vide letter dated 15.05.2014. These shares certificates were lying

B & M Buildcon, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1 (1), Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6674/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman-Ld. CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

B & M Buildcon, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1 (1), Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6673/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman-Ld. CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

ITO 26 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kutubbuddin Z. Bhopalwala, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7047/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 7047/मुं/2018 ("न. व) Ito -26(2)(1) Building No.C-11, 7Th Floor, Room No.709, Prayakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E) Mumbai 400 051 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Kutubddin Z. Bhopalwala, Prop. Jamali Screen Printer,A-102, Maimoon Manzil Chs,Saifee Park Church Road, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Pan:Aewpb2552A

For Appellant: Ms. R.KavithaFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)

contract basis, etc. The assessment for assessment year 2010-11 was reopened by the Assessing Officer on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department. As per the information received, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs.6,57,188/- from the declared hawala

Kundan Lal Sachdev, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 36(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA and Ms. Rinky Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Jain, Sr.D.R

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

case of any accommodation entry by any entry provider or there is no I.T.A. No.1589/DEL/2018 7 report or inquiry from Investigation Wing where anything incriminating material has been found against the assessee or the lender company. The assessee has taken a loan from a company which has huge turnover ... adverse inference ever has been drawn in the case of the lender company. Here there is no any inquiry or information either from the Investigation Wing or through any other sources, that this company is Paper Company or was indulged in some accommodation entry or was controlled by any entry

Shri Raj Kumar Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Ms Suhani Maharwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

also not based on any enquiry or verification of record by the AO but this is simply reproduction of information received from the Investigation Wing. The said information is also incomplete as regards the details of the purchases and the parties from whom such purchases were made by 9 Shri

ITO, Ward-1(1), Jaipur vs. Shri Narendra Singh Mehta, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 1236/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal From Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri K. C. Gupta (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 148

clause 10(e) of Circular no. 03 of 2018 dated 20-08.2018 as the case was reopened u/s 148 basis information received from Investigation Wing, Mumbai and therefore, the present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue and the same should therefore be heard on merits and not dismissed ... agencies such as CBI/ ED/ DRI/ SFIO/ Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). Both administratively and functionally, there cannot be any dispute that the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department is part of Income Tax Department and is therefore clearly not an external law enforcement agency and that

Ravi Choudhary(Legal Rep of Lt. Sushila Choudhari), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1934/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

Section 147Section 148

information that the assessee had dealt with sale of shares of M/s. Blueprint Securities Ltd. According to the ld.AR, the information received from the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department can only trigger the “reasons to suspect” and cannot be equated to “reasons to believe” escapement of income which ... that the assessee is involved in the activities of penny stock rigging etc. It has to be kept in mind that information from the Investigation Wing(Income-tax Department) can only trigger the reasons to suspect. Then the AO to make some preliminary inquiry and collect some material which would

Shri. Pankaj Kapurchand Sanghavi, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 415/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi

Section 143(3)

filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring total income of Rs.4,89,920/-. On the basis of information received from Investigation Wing of the Department, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the ground that assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills to the tune

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ramji Lal Investments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6685/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

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

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143ASection 153ASection 68

assessee, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Income-Tax Department on 20/01/2014 along with other cases of the “Sharp Group”. Consequent to the search proceeding, the Assessing Officer issued

ITO Ward-1(1), Jaipur, Ward-1(1) vs. M/S. A.P. Gems, 2337, Ramlala Street, Johari Bazar, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 627/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 627/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cuke The Ito M/S. A.P. Gems Ward- 1(1) Vs. 2337, Ramlala Street Jaipur Johri Bazar,Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aagfa 5042 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri K.C. Gupta, Jcit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Mehta, Advocate Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13 /03/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Manish Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

additions made on the basis of corroboration information received from 2 The ITO , Ward- 1(1), Jaipur vs M/s. A.P. Gems, Jaipur the Investigating Wing, Mumbai which is a law enforcement agency under the Ministry of Finance and accordingly the case falls under exception clause 10(e) of Circular ... CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 20-08-2018 as the AO has made addition on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing, Mumbai. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld.AR of the assessee has submitted that appeal of the Revenue does not fall in the exception provided

Shri Sajjan Agarwal, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-3(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2476/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2015-16 & S.A. No.114/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Sajjan Agarwal..........………………………………………..................................……………..….......Appellant 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road New Alipore Kolakta – 700 053 [Pan : Adkpa 4768 J] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-3(4), Kolkata……........................….…….....…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 5Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/10/2019, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 31/08/2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,58,890/-. He Declared Income From Salary & Other Sources & Claimed Exemption Under The Head Long Term Capital Gain. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 27/12/2017 Determining The Total Income At Rs.92,98,480/-. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Without Success. 3. Further Aggrieved, The Assessee Is Before Us. 4. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Shri Sunil Surana, Submitted That The Assessee Purchased 12000 Shares Of Gcm Securities Ltd @ Rs.20/ - Each On Preferential Allotment For A Total Consideration Of Rs. 2,40,000/- On 27.3.2013 For Which Payment Was Made By Account Payee Cheque. Subsequently, Those Shares Were Split Into The Ratio

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

Assessing Officer has merely relied on the information received from proceedings. The Assessing Officer has merely relied on the information received from the investigation wing and on the basis of generalisation, rejected the claim of the investigation wing and on the basis of generalisation, rejected the claim of the investigation

M/S Shreyans Jain, HUF, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowe

ITA 1602/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Shreyans Jain, Huf…………….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Dalhousie Square 6Th Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaths 2107 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd-36(2), Kolkata………………………………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 147Section 250

received by the Ass verification of the information received by the Assessing Officer and without application of mind to the information received from the investigation wing of application of mind to the information received from the investigation wing of application of mind to the information received from the investigation wing ... stated: 'I have also perused various materials and Director Investigation, the A.O. stated: 'I have also perused various materials and report from Investigation Wing and on that basis it is evi report from Investigation Wing and on that basis it is evident that the assessee dent that the assessee company

M/S Jaydeep Metals & Tubes, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 86/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Ms. Arbina ShaikhFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi

Section 143(3)

assessment year on 2 आ अ सं. ITA NO.86/MUM/2019(A.Y.2011-12) 20/09/2011 declaring total income of Rs.53,203/-. On the basis of information received from Investigation Wing of the Department, assessment for assessment year 2010-11 was reopened by the Assessing Officer on the ground that assessee has obtained bogus purchase

Shri Shantilal C Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 19(3) (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6038/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathashantilal C. Shah Vs. Ito-19(3)(3) Shop No.17, Mistry Building Matru Mandir 2Nd Floor, 159 Tardeo Road 2Nd Khumbharwada Lane Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Bdeps5540M (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 274Section 3Section 68Section 69C

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. 4. On the facts and circumstances ... also failed to take the investigation to a logical conclusion by carrying out necessary enquires, but he solely relied upon information received from investigation wing, which was further supported by information received from Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. The AO neither pointed out any descrepanices in books of accounts nor made

ITO 27(1)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Excell Tech Systems, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 420/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Shri R. Bhoopathi

Section 143(3)

assessment year 2010-11. The assessee is engaged in manufacturing of Ultrasonic Cleaning Machines. The Assessing Officer on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing of the Department reopened the assessment. As per information received, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills from various hawala dealers. During the period ... Representative and have examined the material available on record. The addition has been made by Assessing Officer on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills. The sales declared by the assessee have not been disputed by the Revenue. Without

ITO 27(1)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Excell Tech Systems, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 419/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Shri R. Bhoopathi

Section 143(3)

ITO 26(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Shri Israr Ahmed J B Choudhary, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7118/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G. Manjunathaito-26(1)(5) Vs. Israr Ahmed J B Choudhary Room No.708, 7Th Floor 23, Vallibhai Haiderbhai Pratyakshakar Bhavan Compound, Lbs Marg Bkc, Bandra Kurla(W), Mumbai-400 070 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaapi5555Q (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 440A(3)

also failed to take the investigation to a logical conclusion by carrying out necessary enquires, but he solely relied upon information received from investigation wing, which was further supported by information received from Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. The AO neither pointed out any descrepanices in books of accounts nor made

Siddhi Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7113/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G. Manjunathasiddhi Synthetics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito-4(3)(4) Shop No.2, Gr.Floor Room No.637 36-A, Champa Gally X Lane Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Badamwadi, Mumbai-400 020 Kalbadevi Road Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No.Aaics7387R (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

ITO 6(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7107/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G. Manjunathaita No.7107 & 7108/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Ito-6(1)(3) Vs. Auto Sales Pvt.Ltd. Room No.508, 5Th Floor 63/69, 3Rd Floor Aaykar Bhawan Nagdevi Cross Road M.K.Road Mumbai-400 003 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aacca0108J (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40