“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

M/S Anil Kumar & Sons, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 10 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 1432/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1432/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Anil Kumar & Sons, Vs. The Income Tax Officer. No.26, Ramunuja Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 10(1) Aynavaram, Chennai. Chennai 600 023. [Pan Aaaha 8892E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Maruthu Pandian, Addl. CIT

Section 10(38)Section 68

assessee had made claim a bogus claim of long term capital gains. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that these statements, nor the reports of the Investigation Wing of the Department ITA No.1432 /2018 :- 3 -: were put to the assessee. Relying on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the cases ... companies. Apart from the SEBI report, lower authorities had also relied on a statement obtained from Mr.Sunil Dokania on 12.06.2015 and the report of Investigation Wing of the Department. What I can discern from the orders of the lower authorities is that the statement given by Mr.Sunil Dokania

Mr. Sunil Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 10(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1431/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1431/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer. No.26, Ramunuja Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 10(4) Aynavaram, Chennai. Chennai 600 023. [Pan Aayps 9112K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Maruthu Pandian, Addl. CIT

Section 10(38)Section 68

assessee had made claim a bogus claim of long term capital gains. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that these statements, nor the reports of the Investigation Wing of the Department ITA No.1431 /2018 :- 3 -: were put to the assessee. Relying on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the cases ... companies. Apart from the SEBI report, lower authorities had also relied on a statement obtained from Mr.Sunil Dokania on 12.06.2015 and the report of Investigation Wing of the Department. What I can discern from the orders of the lower authorities is that the statement given by Mr.Sunil Dokania

Mr. Anil Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 10 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 1430/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1430/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. Mr Anil Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer. No.26, Ramunuja Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 10(1) Aynavaram, Chennai. Chennai 600 023. [Pan Aagpa 7121C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Vijayakumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Maruthu Pandian, Addl. CIT

Section 10(38)Section 68

assessee had made claim a bogus claim of long term capital gains. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that these statements, nor the reports of the Investigation Wing of the Department were put to the assessee. Relying on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench ITA No.1430 /2018 :- 3 -: in the cases ... companies. Apart from the SEBI report, lower authorities had also relied on a statement obtained from Mr.Sunil Dokania on 12.06.2015 and the report of Investigation Wing of the Department. What I can discern from the orders of the lower authorities is that the statement given by Mr.Sunil Dokania

Sunitha, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 10(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1429/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1429/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. Mrs. Sunitha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer. No.26, Ramunuja Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 10(4) Aynavaram, Chennai. Chennai 600 023. [Pan Aasps 4150K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Maruthu Pandian, Addl. CIT

Section 10(38)Section 68

assessee had made claim a bogus claim of long term capital gains. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that these statements, nor the reports of the Investigation Wing of the Department ITA No.1429 /2018 :- 3 -: were put to the assessee. Relying on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the cases ... companies. Apart from the SEBI report, lower authorities had also relied on a statement obtained from Mr.Sunil Dokania on 12.06.2015 and the report of Investigation Wing of the Department. What I can discern from the orders of the lower authorities is that the statement given by Mr.Sunil Dokania

Gajanand Saraf, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai

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

ITA 2257/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2257/Chny/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. Gajanand Saraf Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of New 80, Old No.141, Income Tax Officer. Greams Road, Non Corporate Circle 3 Thousand Lights, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan Aamps 0548P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Maruthu Pandian, Addl.CIT

Section 10(38)Section 68

bogus claim of long term capital gains. Ld. ITA No.2257 /2017 :- 3 -: Authorised Representative submitted that these statements, nor the reports of the Investigation Wing of the Department were put to the assessee. Relying on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the cases of Vimalchand Gulabchand vs. ITO, Praveen ... companies. Apart from the SEBI report, lower authorities had also relied on a statement obtained from Mr.Sunil Dokania on 12.06.2015 and the report of Investigation Wing of the Department. What I can discern from the orders of the lower authorities is that the statement given by Mr.Sunil Dokania

Rajesh Kumar Saraf (HUF), Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2256/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2256/Chny/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. Rajesh Kumar Saraf (Huf) Vs. The Income Tax Officer. New 80, Old No.141, Non Corporate Ward 3(2) Greams Road, Chennai. Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006. [Pan Aaahr 1639P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Maruthu Pandian, Addl.CIT

Section 10(38)Section 68

bogus claim of long term capital gains. Ld. ITA No.2256 /2017 :- 3 -: Authorised Representative submitted that these statements, nor the reports of the Investigation Wing of the Department were put to the assessee. Relying on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the cases of Vimalchand Gulabchand vs. ITO, Praveen ... companies. Apart from the SEBI report, lower authorities had also relied on a statement obtained from Mr.Sunil Dokania on 12.06.2015 and the report of Investigation Wing of the Department. What I can discern from the orders of the lower authorities is that the statement given by Mr.Sunil Dokania

Veena Devi Saraf, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 3(5), Chennai

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

ITA 2255/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2255/Chny/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. Veena Devi Saraf Vs. The Income Tax Officer. New 80, Old No.141, Non Corporate Ward 3(5) Greams Road, Chennai. Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006. [Pan Aakps 4589C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Maruthu Pandian, Addl.CIT

Section 10(38)Section 68

bogus claim of long term capital gains. Ld. ITA No.2255 /2017 :- 3 -: Authorised Representative submitted that these statements, nor the reports of the Investigation Wing of the Department were put to the assessee. Relying on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the cases of Vimalchand Gulabchand vs. ITO, Praveen ... companies. Apart from the SEBI report, lower authorities had also relied on a statement obtained from Mr.Sunil Dokania on 12.06.2015 and the report of Investigation Wing of the Department. What I can discern from the orders of the lower authorities is that the statement given by Mr.Sunil Dokania

Indu Jain, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 43(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 682/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2007-08 Indu Jain, Ito, Ward- 43(4), B- 144, Phase- V, Sector- 54, New Delhi. Vs. Gurgaon, Haryana.

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 148

details of your assessee, as forwarded to you earlier in the form of excel sheet.” 4. On the basis of above information obtained from Investigation Wing of the Department, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.10,95,000/- as on money through Crescendo Associates ... addition of Rs.10,95,000/- made by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 147/148 on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing of the Department. 6. However, the ld. CIT(A) also upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under

Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2871/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

that search and seizure action under section 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out in the Neha Jewellers group of cases by Investigation Wing, New Delhi on 16.10.2014. Warrant of authorization was also executed in the case of assessee. As per the return filed in previous years, the assessee

M/S. M.L. Singhi & Associates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 3337/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3335/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 68

therefore, the survey operation could not be carried out and even thereafter, during post search period further spot verifications were carried out by the Investigation Wing and then also it was confirmed that the above mentioned companies were not existing at the given addresses and the others were mainly operational ... regards to the merit of the case, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the AO informed the assessee about the findings of the Investigation Wing of the department during the search and post search enquiries whereby informations and evidences were found to reveal that most of the companies which were

M/S. M.L. Singhi & Associates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 3336/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3335/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 68

M/S. M.L. Singhi & Associates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 3335/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3335/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 68

Sh. Karan Khurana, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2698/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Dass, Senior DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

were initiated. Assessing Officer completed assessment on the basis of intimation received vide letter no.Asstt.DIT (Inv.)-Unit-III (2)/EP/2012-13/432 dated 18.12.2012 from the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department that the assessee has not disclosed five bank accounts for Income-tax purpose for the years ... case. & 2698/Del./2015 5. Undisputedly, assessment has been reopened in this case on the basis of information received by the AO from the Investigation Wing, It is also not in dispute that in response to the notice issued by the AO u/s 148, assessee filed fresh return of income declaring

Sh. Karan Khurana, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2697/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Dass, Senior DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Sh. Karan Khurana, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2696/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Dass, Senior DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Sh. Karan Khurana, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2695/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Dass, Senior DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

M/S G.B. Impex, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 800/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer on the basis of the report of DIT(Inv.) as well as statement recorded by the Investigation Wing of one Shri Vijay ITA 624 & 800/JP/2018_ 5 M/s GB Impex Vs ITO Narendra Kothari who has admitted to have provided accommodation entries ... Kothari Impex which was found indulged in providing accommodation entries, therefore, the reopening is based on tangible material in the shape of report of Investigation Wing as well as statement of Shri Vijay Narendra Kothari recorded on 10/10/2013. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below

M/S G.B. Impex, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 624/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

ACIT, Cir-32, Kolkata vs. Vibha Kejriwal, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1877/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

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

Section 10(38)Section 68

hold that the said orders of SEBI is no evidence against the assessee, much less to speak of direct evidence. The enquiry by the Investigation Wing and/or the statements of several persons recorded by the Investigation Wing in connection with the alleged bogus transactions in the shares of KAFL also

Ratan Lal Agarwala, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ratan Lal Agarwal……..…….....................…………….………………………………………..……….……..Appellant 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road Lal Bazar Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Acrpa 9773 H] Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(1), Kolkata.……………………………….…..………..……………...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sital Chandra Das, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 28Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10 Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 15/02/2018, 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 Consideration Is, As To Whether, The Addition In Question Made U/S 68 Of The Act, In Respect Of Sale Profits Of Shares Of Essar India Ltd., Is Valid In Law. The Assessee Had Disclosed Long Term Capital Gain On The Purchase & Sale Of Shares Of Essar India Ltd. The Assessing Officer As Well As The Ld. Cit(A) Were Of The View That This Is A Pre-Arranged Bogus Long Terms Capital Gain. They Rejected The Contentions Of The Assessee & The Entire Receipt Was Treated U/S 68 Of The Act. 5% Fo The Same Was Also Added U/S 69 Of The Act, As Commission Paid. The Assessee In Support Of His Contentions Has Filed The Following Documents, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings :- A) Copies Of Bank Statements B) Ledger Copies C) Demat Statements D) Contract Notes

Section 250Section 68Section 69

whose statements the revenue relies to make the addition, is provided to the assessee. The addition is made based on a report from the investigation wing. 13. The issue for consideration before us is whether, in such cases, the legal evidence produced by the assessee has to guide our decision ... bona fide and genuine manner and was benefitted, one cannot reject this submission based on surmises and conjectures. As the report of investigation wing suggests, there are more than 60,000 beneficiaries of LTCG. Each case has to be assessed based on legal principles of legal import laid down