← All Phrases

“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
97
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
96
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
90
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
81
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
78
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
56
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

Gaurav Kumar Agarwalla, Kalahandi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 283/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Before Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra/Rohan JainFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

shown by the assessee. Later on a survey operation was conducted in the business-cum-office premsies of the firm M/s. Arundhati Automotives by Investigation Wing of Sambalpur u/s.133A of the I.T.Act at Bhawanipatana on 9th & 10th November, 2015 and books of accounts marked ... statements, copy of dealer agreement and copy of cash book, etc Ld A.R. submitted that it was the contention of the assessee before the Investigation Wing as well as before the authorities below that the payments were made directly by customers to Arundhati Automotives. Hence

Gaurav Kumar Agarwalla, Kalahandi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 282/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Before Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra/Rohan JainFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

shown by the assessee. Later on a survey operation was conducted in the business-cum-office premsies of the firm M/s. Arundhati Automotives by Investigation Wing of Sambalpur u/s.133A of the I.T.Act at Bhawanipatana on 9th & 10th November, 2015 and books of accounts marked ... statements, copy of dealer agreement and copy of cash book, etc Ld A.R. submitted that it was the contention of the assessee before the Investigation Wing as well as before the authorities below that the payments were made directly by customers to Arundhati Automotives. Hence

Praveen Kumar Otmalji (HUF), Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5(50, Chennai

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

ITA 3143/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

Section 10

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the A.O received information from Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment of the assessee in penny stock company, namely, M/s. Concrete Credit Limited. The assessee also admittedly sold ... penny stock company. From the material available on record it appears that a copy of information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. It is not brought on record the relationship of the assessee with the promoters

Sh. Mahender Kumar Valecha, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6333/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraa.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 69

assessee was entitled to adjustment of seized cash. The Ld. AO while giving appeal effect shall ascertain from the assessment record and the investigation wing if required, giving credence to the applications made by the assessee for adjustment of seized cash. Accordingly for statistical purposes, this ground of appeal

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Gracious Project Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1720/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 1720/Del/2015 (A.Y 2007-08) Acit, Vs M/S. Gracious Project Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-30, 09, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy New Delhi. Marg, Cannaught Place, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaccg 3028 M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

/144 and thus the order u/s 143(1) became final. Thereafter search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the investigation wing of the Department on 22.03.2011 in the Amtek group of cases. The assessee’s case was proposed for centralization by the investigation wing

Mahesh Kumar (HUF), Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 11(2), Chennai

In the result, the penalty appeal of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2392/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2563/Chny/2017 & 2392/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2014-15

For Respondent: Ms.R.Anita,C.I.T, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the A.O received information from Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment of the assessee in penny stock company, namely, M/s. Concrete Credit Limited. The assessee also admittedly sold ... penny stock company. From the material available on record it appears that a copy of information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. It is not brought on record the relationship of the assessee with the promoters

Mahesh Kumar(HUF), Chennai vs. ITO Ncw 11(2), Chennai

In the result, the penalty appeal of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2563/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2563/Chny/2017 & 2392/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2014-15

For Respondent: Ms.R.Anita,C.I.T, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the A.O received information from Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment of the assessee in penny stock company, namely, M/s. Concrete Credit Limited. The assessee also admittedly sold ... penny stock company. From the material available on record it appears that a copy of information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. It is not brought on record the relationship of the assessee with the promoters

Sanghavi Diamond Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO -Ward- 23 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5769/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm M/S Sanghvi Diamond Vs. I.T.O., Corporation, Ward-23(3)(2), Bw-5021, 5Th Floor, Bharat Mumbai. Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. Pan/Gir No.Aaafs 3251 M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)

this case, search and survey action was conducted in the case of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and others on 03/10/2013 by DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai. The Investigation Wing, Mumbai covered certain name sake/dummy directors/partners/proprietors of various concerns that were being actually managed, controlled and operated by Bhanwarlal Jain & family

ITO 29(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Ketan Dhirajlal Gada, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5560/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ram Lal Negi

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

also failed to take the investigation to a logical conclusion by carry 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. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to accept arguments of revenue side. Further

Income Tax Officer-9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Manish P. Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2397/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodito-19(2)(3) Vs. Manish P.Shah 2Nd Room No.218, Floor, C/O M/S. Microlink Matru Mandir Technologies, Office No.3, 3Rd 14Th Tardeo Road Floor, Mehta Mumbai-400 007 Mansion, Tribuvan Road, Off. Lamington Road Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaeps4599J (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

from DGIT(Inv), Munibal. This argument of the appellant is devoid of any merit. In the present case, on specific information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department that the purchases debited to P& L A/c were bogus, the AO after recording the reasons as stipulated ... 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. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to accept arguments of both the sides

Surinder Kumar & Sons HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 890/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2019AY 2000-01

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 68Section 68oSection 69Section 69A

Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal (HUF) 4,00,000/- Total 52,00,000/- 4. Apart from that, it is also a matter of fact that Investigation Wing after detailed inquiry had found that Shri Sanjay Mohan Agarwal was an entry provider and has given bogus gift to numerous persons who were complete ... justified. 8. Ld. CIT (A) held that Assessing Officer not only had sufficient material on record but had credible information from the Investigation Wing relating to the assessee and based on application of mind Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment. In support, he relied upon the judgment

Vipul Munoth, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(5), Chennai

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

ITA 3519/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3519/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shri Vipul Munoth, No.26, Ramanujar Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward 10(5), Ayanavaram, Chenani - 34 Chennai – 600 023. Pan: Anhpv8201A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Padmanabhan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri R. Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 68

price of Rs.257.10 per share. According to the Ld.AR, the Assessing Officer on the basis of so called investigation made by the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata and Delhi found that there was an organized sub racket of generating bogus entries of Long Term Capital Gain going ... transacted for Rs.363,96,85,649/- at the abnormal high rate. Therefore on the basis of the investigation done by the Kolkata Investigation Wing of the Department found that M/s. Kappac Pharma Ltd., is a penny stock company. Accordingly the Assessing Officer made addition U/s.68 of the Income

Smt. Pinky Devi, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5 (5), Chennai

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

ITA 1803/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1803/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10(38)

involved in inflating the shares of the company. Moreover, the copy of the investigation report 3 I.T.A. No.1803/Chny/18 said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. On identical circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Sons ... Representative also. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessees on the basis of the information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment made by the assessees in the penny stock company. It is not in dispute that

Ms. Kavitha Dilipkumar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 1802/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1802/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10(38)

involved in inflating the shares of the company. Moreover, the copy of the investigation report 3 I.T.A. No.1802/Chny/18 said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. On identical circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Sons ... Representative also. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessees on the basis of the information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment made by the assessees in the penny stock company. It is not in dispute that

Smt. Khushbu Devi Ranka, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 1801/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1801/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Khushbu Devi Ranka, No.4, Manikanda Mudali Street, The Income Tax Officer, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. V. Non Corporate Ward -5(1), Chennai - 600 006. Pan: Azrpk7252Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10(38)

assessee involved in inflating the shares of the company. Moreover, the copy of the investigation report said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. On identical circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Sons ... Representative also. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessees on the basis of the information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment made by the assessees in the penny stock company. It is not in dispute that

Shri. Kirtesh Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 1800/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1800/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10(38)

assessee involved in inflating the shares of the company. Moreover, the copy of the investigation report said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. On identical circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Sons ... Representative also. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessees on the basis of the information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment made by the assessees in the penny stock company. It is not in dispute that

Mrs. P Kesarimal Jain, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 1799/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1799/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10(38)

assessee involved in inflating the shares of the company. Moreover, the copy of the investigation report said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. On identical circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Sons ... Representative also. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessees on the basis of the information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment made by the assessees in the penny stock company. It is not 4 I.T.A. No.1799/Chny/18

ACIT- Circle 15 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. G-3 Motors Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6518/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmaa.C.I.T. Vs. M/S G-3 Motors Limited, Circle-15(1)(2), Plot No. D-175, Ttc Industrial Area, Mumbai. Midc Shiravane, Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400705. Pan/Gir No.Aaccg 8148 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145

appellant is a company engaged in the business of trading. Ld. AO made the addition on the basis of information received from the investigation wing of Income Tax Department, Mumbai that the Sales Tax Department had recorded the statements of certain hawala operators who had confirmed to have given bogus

DCIT Cent. Cir. -8(4), Mumbai vs. Mindset Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5038/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri B. Jaya Kumar
Section 132Section 132(4)

director as well as the employees made a general statement about receipt of on-money with reference to a question posed by the Investigation wing without any reference to particular seized material found as a result of search. Similarly, the AO has taken circumstantial evidence of cash and unexplained jewellery

Veer Savarkar Katyal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1880/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Veer Savarkar Katyal, Vs Ito, 329, Sainik Vihar, Ward-42(2), Pitampura, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Abdpk7569E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Miss Umang Luthra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St January, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-14, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 30Th October, 2007 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.1,91,180/-. In This Case, Information Was Received Through The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax (Inv.), Unit-1(1), New Delhi, Vide Letter F.No.Ddit(Inv.)/Unit-1(1)/Um/2013-

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)

various decisions cited before us. We find, the Assessing Officer, in the instant case, on the basis of the information obtained from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had purchased one property V3S-Omaxe from Mrs. Brij Bala & M/s Yogum Developers Ltd. for Rs.1,05,55,375/- in cash, made ... file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide the copy of the statement so recorded and the documents so obtained from the Investigation Wing which are the basis for initiation of reassessment proceedings and making the addition. The 5 Assessing Officer shall decide the issue as per fact