“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

Shreyans Badola, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 6(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3043/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3043/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri U. Deepak Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, JCIT

Section 10(38)

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 ... inflating the price of shares, etc. The Assessing Officer shall also furnish a copy of the investigation report said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata and other materials if anything in his possession and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after

Bradma Logistics Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Central - 4, Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2756/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2755/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2756/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

capital assets purchases and share capital introduction without pointed out any defect in the reconciliation submitted before the AO as well as before investigation wing based on which order U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was passed. 4 | P a g e ITAs No.2755 & 2756/Mum/2018 7. The Learned PCIT has erred ... Counsel of the assessee claimed that the A.O. has not proposed any further addition. He claimed that the detail and reconciliation were before the Investigation Wing also, and no adverse comment was made by them also. Further, he submitted that the A.O. has considered the fact that on one hand

Bradma Logistics Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Central - 4, Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2755/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

Shri Rakesh Mishra, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2264/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rakesh Mishra, The Deputy M/S. Subham Enterprises, Commissioner Of No. 31, Sanjeevappa Lane, Vs. Income Tax, Avenue Road Cross, Circle – 5 (2) (1), Bangalore – 560 002. Bangalore. Pan: Aewpm8287M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

appeal without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of our claim simply on the basis of investigation report of Ahmadabad investigation wing that party with whom we have entered into transaction for purchase of DFIA license is not traceable.. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred

Sarita Saraf, Chennai vs. ACIT, Cor Cir-5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 3247/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Mr.Sridhar Dora, JCITFor Respondent: 04.07.2019

Section 10(38)Section 40A(3)

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

Mukeshkumarjain, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2973/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2973/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T.C. Narayanan, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, 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

Rajesh Mittal, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle -12(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2130/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Mrs.M.Subashri, JCITFor Respondent: 03.07.2019

Section 10(38)Section 40A(3)

Jsw Steel Ltd(Successor Company on Amalgamation With Jsw Ispat Steel Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4068/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha () M/S Jsw Steel Ltd (Successor Vs Dy.Cit, Cent.Cir.3(2), Mumbai On Amalgamation With Jsw Ispat Steel Ltd), Jsw Centre Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan : Aaaci6293E Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

considered view that the information received from 6 ITA 4068/Mum/2018 external agencies by the AO in the form of report of investigation wing constitute a fresh material which is sufficient to form a reasonable belief of escapement of income within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and hence

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Vipul D. Shah, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5688/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5688/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Dcit-Central Circle -8(1) Shri Vipul D. Shah Room No.656, 6Th Floor 1303, Imperial Residency बनाम नाम/ नाम नाम Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Gulmohar, Cross Road No.12, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Jvpd, Near Juhu Circle & Axis Bank Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaups-0598-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No.350/Mum/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5688/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Shri Vipul D. Shah Dcit-Central Circle -8(1) Room No.656, 6Th Floor 1303, Imperial Residency बनाम नाम/ नाम नाम Gulmohar, Cross Road No.12, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jvpd, Near Juhu Circle & Axis Bank Mumbai-400 020 Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaups-0598-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram and Rahul Hakani – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh-Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and he merely relied on information received from Investigation wing and further reopening is nothing but change of opinion and hence reopening is bad in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that A.O for justifying reopening relied ... vide impugned order dated 23/06/2017 which was dismissed in view of the fact that Ld. AO was in receipt of certain information from investigation wing about misuse of CCM facility and therefore. Ld. AO had no choice but to reopen the case for examining the issue and taking further steps

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3460/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: SH. ASEEM CHAWLA, CA & SH. SHASHIFor Respondent: MS. ASHIMA NEB, SR. DR

Section 134(4)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 37

time of hearing of the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an information was received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata that during the course of search operation in the case of Sh. Praveen Aggarwal and his group companies, it was established that the said Mr. Praveen

Shri Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Ranjan Kumar (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 271D

30th September, 2017 to the CBDT. The alleged retraction has no evidentiary value as it is sent to the CBDT and not to the Investigation Wing. Further, when the assessee in the statement on oath has admitted the fact of receiving the loan of Rs. 15 crores, then the subsequent ... this satisfaction of the AO as revealed from the reference letter is based on the information and document received from the Investigation Wing, Jaipur. Therefore, even if the said correspondence is considered as part of the proceedings of investigation carried out by the Jaipur Investigation Wing in case of Shri

Ramesh Kumar Kothari, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2502/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2502/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Ramesh Kumar Kothari, The Income Tax Officer, 31, Chandrappa Mudali Street, V. Non Corporate Ward - 6(1), Sowcarpet, Chennai - 600 079. Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Ajipk 2509 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, JCIT

Section 10(38)

equity shares of shell companies were transacted and the price of each share was artificially increased. According to the Ld. D.R., the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata found that there was cartel among the brokers who are all involved in penny stocks of shell companies. Therefore, according ... 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

Prasanchand Daga, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5(5), Chennai

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

ITA 2501/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2501/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Prasanchand Daga, The Income Tax Officer, 82, Audiappan Naicken Street, V. Non Corporate Ward - 5(5), Sowcarpet, Chennai - 600 079. Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aalpd 1932 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, JCIT

Section 10(38)

J.K. Jewellers International, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 29/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 148

noted that the assessee has shown the purchases from 5 (five) parties which were subjected to search and seizure action by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai and found to be involved in providing bogus entry. Accordingly, the AO considered the purchases made by the assessee from those entities as bogus/unverifiable purchases

M/S. Dwarkadhis Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwani vs. CIT, Hisar

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

ITA 3097/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Dwarkadhis Buildwell Pvt. Ltd Cit C/O N. K. Jain, Advocate Naya Vs Hisar Bazar, Bhiwani Pan No. Aaccd1951E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Naveen Gupta Ca Shri Ashu Goyal, Ca Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain, Ca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 01/07/2019 Order

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263

discussion made in above paras, I am of the considered opinion that the A.O. ought to have appreciated the evidence gathered by the investigation wing and followed a course to confront these evidences to the assessee, including conducting further enquiries which were necessary to gather relevant material which AO failed ... Private Limited reported in 342 ITR 169. He was also of the opinion that the AO should have appreciated the evidence gathered by the investigation wing where in certain incriminating material were gathered and the Assessing Officer should have conducted further enquiry which were necessary to gather relevant material which

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S Shri Ramswaroop Charitable Trust, Lucknow

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 557/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-2015

Section 11

record of Income Tax Reported in 114 identity of donors - names of the donors DTR 224. along with their addresses were furnished before the Investigation Wing of the Department and were also recorded in the books produced by the assessee before the A. 0. - Hence, such donations cannot be classified

ACIT 32(2), Mumbai vs. Mount Infra Project, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4007/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodacit-32(2) M/S Mount Infra Project, Room No. 308, 3Rd Floor, 702-A, Prem Nagar, Bldg. C-11, Pratayakshakar Bhavan, No.5, Mandpeshwar Road, Vs. Bkc, Bandra East, Borivali (West), Mumbai- 400 051 Mumbai 400 092

For Appellant: Shri D.G. Pansari, D.RFor Respondent: None

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

loan from the group concerns controlled by Bhanwarlal Jain as such the AO's finding and reliance placed on the investigation made by the Investigation Wing was right. iv. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee has proved

M/S Sree Rajendra Textiles, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3323/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sree Rajendra Textiles, The Deputy No. 385, 4Th Floor, Rmv 2Nd Commissioner Of Stage, 2Nd Block, 80 Feet Road, Vs. Income Tax, Sanjaynagar, Bangalore – 560 Circle – 5 [2] [1], 094. Bangalore. Pan: Aaefs9813K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. H.L. Soumya Achar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2019

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. H.L. Soumya Achar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 148Section 234

transfer of funds. Modus operandi revealed during investigation and Fund flow/ transfer analysis was narrated in the assessment order. The investigation report of Ahmedabad investigation wing reveals that those two parties were neither exist nor not traceable. Under the circumstances, the credit entries in the bank account of the respective

Seema Tayal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1132/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 115BSection 68

were artificially hiked to create non-genuine LTCG to the beneficiaries. 4.1 The Assessing Officer also observed that statements were also recorded by the Investigation Wing in other cases of various brokers, operators and entry providers, who accepted that TTL is a Penny Stock company and the scrip has been ... available on record. 14. Further, the authorities below and Ld. CIT DR have also drawn heavy support from the investigation report of the Kolkata Investigation Wing and the statement of Sh. Vikrant Kayan. On going through the record, we find that the statement of Sh. Vikrant Kayan was provided

Asha Luthra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 51(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of all the above four assessees, namely, Smt

ITA 6483/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR) and Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

shares were artificially hiked to create non-genuine LTCG to the beneficiaries. The Assessing Officer also observed that statements were also recorded by the investigation Wing in other cases of various brokers, operators and entry providers, who accepted that both M/s Esteem Bio and M/s Turbotech are Penny Stock companies ... financial performance of the company. Further, we also find from record that Ld. AO also didn't confront copies of statements recorded by Investigation Wing, Kolkata of Sh, Nikhil Jain, Sh. Sanjay Vora, Sh. Rakesh Somani, Sh. Anil Kumar Khemka and Sh. Bidyoot Sarkar to the appellant during assessment proceedings