“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

Shri Dineshkumar C. Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1730/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

observed/held as under:- “In reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. He pointed out that the information was received from the investigation wing of the department at Calcutta regarding shell companies which had given accommodation entries for share premium to Surat based companies. A list ... case where entirely new set of documents and materials was placed for his consideration compiled in the form of report received from the investigation wing. Such material was perused by the Assessing Officer and upon examination thereof, he formed a belief that the assessee company had received share application

M/S. Psychotropics Leasing & Finance (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1122/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 133(6)Section 234ASection 24

when the cheques were cleared—Thus, primary onus was discharged by the assessee—Assessee was not confronted with the investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing or given any opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were recorded by the Investigation Wing to draw adverse conclusion against the assessee

D.C.I.T., Circle-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Desmet Reagent Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 15/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

from its taxable income. The AO also noted that a survey operation was conducted by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata against the said concern M/s. HHBHRF on 27.01.2015 and it was found that the aforesaid concern was 2 Desmet Reagent Pvt Ltd, AY 2013-14 engaged in providing bogus donation

Abhinandan Buildtech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Thane, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 90/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena &

Officer in all these Assessment Years based on the information of the Sales Tax Department in their official website and the information from the Investigation Wing, noticed that several dealers have provided only accommodation entries for purchase of materials without supply of goods. In the course of Assessment Proceedings

Ralf Jems P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 5(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1574/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

served upon the assessee along with the reasons for reopening were also supplied. A search action under section 132 was carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Department in Bhavarlal Jain Group cases on 03/10/2003, who were found in the business of giving accommodation entries of bogus sales/purchases/loan

Abhinandan Buildtech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Thane, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 4341/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena &

Abhinandan Buildtech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Thane, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 4340/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena &

Abhinandan Buildtech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Thane, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 4339/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena &

Asst CIT Cen Cir 1, Thane vs. Abhinandan Buildtech P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 4067/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena &

Asst CIT Cen Cir 1, Thane vs. Abhinandan Buildtech P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 4066/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena &

Asst CIT Cen Cir 1, Thane vs. Abhinandan Buildtech P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 4065/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena &

Saanika Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and partly allowed set-aside for statistical purposes

ITA 208/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: C .M. Garg & O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.208/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Saanika Industries Pvt. Ltd., V. Deputy Commissioner Of Block No. 1053, Village Tradekeshwar, Income-Tax, Near Hariyal Bus Stop, Tal- Mandvi, Circle -2(1)(2) Surat District-Surat 394230 Pan: Aajcs 6782P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. D.R. राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By 29.10.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 01.11.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per O. P. Meena, Am 1. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Surat (In Short “Cit(A)”) Dated 07.12.2015 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Ground No. I- Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs. 10 Lakhs From M/S. Sadasukh Dealers Pvt. Ltd. , When The Amount Is Received By Account Payee Cheques & Confirmation, Bank Statement

Section 234A

observed that the companies have filed tax return, bank statement and confirmation of accounts and there is no negative report of the Investigation Wing and there is no reference in the statement of Shri Manohar Nangalia. However, the Revenue has made Saanika Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT2(1)(2) Surat ... observed that the issue needs to be remitted back to the file of the AO for making further, investigation with the help of Investigation Wing. In view of these facts and circumstances, since the issue of receipt of Rs. 10 Lakh during the year under consideration is also linked with

ITO, Ward- 41(1), New Delhi vs. Aastha Goel, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 6005/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2014-15 Ito, Ward- 41(1), Aastha Goel, New Delhi. 28/42, West Punjabi Bagh, Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Mrs. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80CSection 80T

applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the assessment was reopened on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing that the assessee has received accommodation entries in shape of bogus share capital. Since the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the genuineness

Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 726/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Vs. Dcit, 27, Vijay Society, Cir – 3(1), New Khanderao Road., Vadodara. Baroda. Pan No. Abwpj 8597 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings & Therefore The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Required To Be Quashed. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Disallowance Of Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 87,57,789/- As Exempt Income & Adding Back To The Total Income Of The Appellant & Therefore The Learned Ao Should Be Directed To Allow The Claim Of Exempt Income. 3. That The Appellant Craves Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter & Delete Any Grounds Of Appeal Before The Final Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148

assessment completed u/s.143(3), after four years from the end of relevant assessment year, on the basis of information given by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai on the basis of search & survey conducted in the case of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and his Group concerns, has been decided

Premlata Agarwal, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward - 2(4), Siliguri

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 874/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Premlata Agarwal……………...……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….........Appellant Neelam Agarwal C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite-213 2Nd Floor Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Accpa 8188 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Siliguri…..……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 25Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th , 2018 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) – 13, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 21/02/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of First Financial Services Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 69C

specific to any assessee. The assessee was not confronted with any statement or material alleged to be the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing of the department and which were the basis on which conclusion were drawn against the assessee. Copy of the report was also not given

Smt. Sabita Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 45(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Sabita Gupta………………...……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….........Appellant 132, Cotton Street 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aczpg 5987 F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-45(2), Kolkata..……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 25Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th , 2018 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) – 13, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 21/02/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Unno Industries Limited & M/S. Ncl Research & Financial Services Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

Section 10(38)Section 250

Neeraj Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 863/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Neeraj Gupta……………………...……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….........Appellant 132, Cotton Street 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Adapg 0346 E] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-44(1), Kolkata..……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 25Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th, 2018 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) – 13, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 28Th February, 2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Unno Industries Limited & M/S. Ncl Research & Financial Services Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

Section 10(38)Section 250