“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

Ghanshyam, Mathura vs. ITO 3(2), Mathura

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 129/AGR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 151

Agra, the Agra Bench of the Tribunal upheld the notice issued under section 148 of the Act based on the report of the Investigation Wing. The issue of validity or otherwise of the approval granted, which is the issue at hand, was not present therein. I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 15 & I.T.A ... Bench), ITAT upheld the initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Act after having found that after receipt of report from the Investigation Wing, the AO had applied his mind to such information and had then issued the notice to the assessee. No issue of non-application of mind

Prathyusha Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 638/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. Sailendra Mamidi, PCITFor Respondent: 16.05.2019

Section 10Section 12A

12th Cross Street, Indira Nagar, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai-600 020. Chennai. & The Principal Commissioner- of Income Tax, Central-2, Room No.302, Investigation Wing, No.46, M.G.Road, Chennai-600 034. [PAN: AATTP 5521 H] (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+यथ)/Respondent) : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. अपीलाथ) क, ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT ... Approval granted u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act vide Notification in C.No.CCIT III/183/10(23C)/07-08 3 02.07.2010 Investigation wing of the Department conducted a search u/s.132 of the Act in the premises of the Appellant. 4 17.10.2011 Notice u/s.153A of the Act issued by the ACIT, Central Circle

Prathyusha Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 637/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. Sailendra Mamidi, PCITFor Respondent: 16.05.2019

Section 10Section 12A

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bright Power Projects (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 511/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)

issued bills as per the desire and requirement of the customers. This information was passed on by the Sales Tax Authorities to the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Dept., Mumbai which in turn had segregated the A.O. wise information and had forwarded the same for necessary action. In the instant

Beta Maschinenfabrik (P) Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Noida

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Sh. R.R.Maurya, Adv. and Sh. Rajesh Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 132Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

form of bogus share capital/premium/loan were obtained. In the case of assessee evidence regarding accommodation entries amounting to Rs.10 lakhs was found by Investigation Wing for A.Y. under appeal. The assessee produced details in support of its income and produced books of accounts and other materials which were verified ... checked. The assessee was asked to furnish details of share capital money and confirmation of parties and was confronted with the report received from Investigation Wing about accommodation entries. The assessee furnished details of parties from whom share application money was received along with affidavits of Directors confirming the same

Vidya Prakashan Mandir P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit, Delhi-9, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 574/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Deepali Chandra, CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

Unno Industries Ltd.; ii) Pinnacle Ventrade Private Limited; and iii) Lambodar Nirmit Private Limited. AO further noted that during search proceedings conducted by Kolkata Investigation Wing, certain statements of persons were recorded from where it was gathered that the share price movement of these companies and sale/purchase are not genuine ... company. This becomes important when the AO has made a huge addition on account of bogus LTCG on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing, Kolkata. 2. The opening and closing stock of raw material and W.I.P. has been shown as Nil which required further enquiries. 3. Against

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Rajshree Jalan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3063/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Sh. M.L. Dujari, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 153Section 68

same amount appears to have been given to M/s Vitrag Jewels on 8th Feb.,2007. Since the details match with the information received by Investigation Wing, therefore, assessee was asked to explain the credit entry of Rs.3,73,000/- appearing in her bank statement. The assessee did not attend

M/S. Garner Finance & Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 1 (C)

ITA 2417/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishigarner Finance & Securities Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd, Circle-12(1), C-70, Ground Floor, Freedom New Delhi Fighter Enclave, Neb Sarai, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg2580J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

Reopening the matter u/s 147, which had been set at rest long back, purely on the basis of the information received from investigation wing of Income Tax without verifying the same from the records and framing his mind independently. (b) Not confronting the Assessee with the copy of the statements ... justice.” 3. Brief facts shows that assessee is a company who filed its return of income on 3/6/2005 showing income of Rs. 858/–. The Investigation wing of the Department, Delhi informed that assessee has taken accommodation entries from the entry operators and therefore notice under section 148 of the income

Ramchandra Sopan Botre, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Panvel

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-14

ITA 1847/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sh. Ramchandra Sopan Botre, The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, 108, Omkar Arcade, Sector-15, 2Nd Floor, Triffed Tower, New Panvel-E Raigad, Vs. Opp: Khanda Colony, Maharashtra Panvel, Raigad, Maharashtra-410206 Pan : Ahgpb9041F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: application for withdrawal of the appeal)For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha (DR)

Section 131Section 143

different classes of officers. Whereas section 131 (1) empowers the jurisdictional assessing officer to issue summons. Section 131 (1A) empowers the officers of the investigation wing viz. Assistant Director, Deputy Director or the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) to issue summon. Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 gives

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1419/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G Manjunathaassessment Year : 2011-12 Ito 6(3)(2), Indokem Ltd., Mumbai 410/411 Khatau House, Vs. Mogul Lane, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M V Rajguru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)Section 69C

that the assessee has failed to file any evidences in support of purchases from the above parties in view of the findings of the Investigation Wing of Maharashtra VAT department, that these parties were involved in providing accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee even failed

ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indokem Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1414/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G Manjunathaassessment Year : 2011-12 Ito 6(3)(2), Indokem Ltd., Mumbai 410/411 Khatau House, Vs. Mogul Lane, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M V Rajguru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)Section 69C

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Chirag Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4321/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Virender Singh, DRFor Respondent: Miss Pritama Pokhrana, AR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

account of additional income declared during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act conducted on 25.08-2009 by the investigation Wing of the Department. The AO initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income as well ... exercise for that purpose. The AO simply relied on the surrender/disclosure made by the assessee during the course of survey conducted by the Investigation Wing of the department on 25.08.2009, much before the due date of filing of return of income and moreover the return of income was filed only

Piyush Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 20(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 423/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 423/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Piyush Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 715, Ring Road Mall, Manglam Ward-20(1), Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp7396P Assessee By : Sh. Pramod Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.12.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-7, New Delhi. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) & A.O. Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Ld. A.O. Erred In Invoking Provisions Of Section 148. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Amounting Rs. 10,00,000/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act. 4. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upheld The Addition Amounting Rs. 20,000/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Adhoc Basis On Account Of Commission Paid. 5. That The Id. Ao Has Not Provided Any Tangible Evidence Against Respondent While Making Addition In His Order

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

provided any tangible evidence against respondent while making addition in his order 2 Piyush Polymers Pvt. Ltd. other than Extracts of Investigation wing report as provided in reasons for reopening. 6. That the Ld, AO erred in not providing the opportunity of confronting the Information and documents received ... from Investigation Wing. 7. That the Ld. AO erred in not providing opportunity for cross examination which result in breach of natural justice. 8. That the Id. AO erred in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 9. That the Id. A.O. also erred in not following various judgments of jurisdictional

Gorika Investment and Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3396/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3396/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 M/S Gorika Investment & Vs Income Tax Officer, Exports (P) Ltd., 531Sg Ward-10(2), Complex, Dc Chowk Market, New Delhi Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg2462K Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., Sh. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Adv. & Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.02.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-35, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 234Section 68Section 69C

case of M/s Gorika Investments & Exports Pvt. Ltd., AY- 2009-10 On the basis of information received from Investigation Wing, Assessing Officer has submitted that a search was conducted in S.K. Jain Group of cases (entry operator) and accommodation entries amounting Rs.15,00,000/- have been provided to the assessee ... case of M/s N. C. Cables Limited, for the A. Y. 2001-02-reg. Information has been received from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department that the above named assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entries received from certain established entry operators identified by the Wing during

Shiv Charan Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 56(4), New Delhi

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 4035/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Shiv Charan Goel, Income Tax Officer, 1/7032, Shivaji Park, Vs. Shahdara, Ward : 56(4), D E L H I – 110 032. N E W D E L H I. Pan : Aaepg 9561 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

ground that the learned Assessing Officer has re-opened the case of the assessee purely on the basis of the information received from Investigation Wing without application of his own mind. It was further contended that satisfaction recorded by the approving authority is also not proper ... capitation. The learned CIT (Appeals) rejected the contention of the assessee. According to him, there was a definite information from the Investigation Wing, therefore, the re-opening is made on the definite information. He further stated that as assessee has not filed any return of income, there is no occasion

Lokesh H Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3632/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhta No.3632 To 3634/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12) Lokesh H. Jain Ito-14(3)(2) Prop. M/S Sagar Cables, Earnest House, Nariman Point Room No. 29, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-20. Amrut Nivas, 165 Lohar Chawl, Next To T Building, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Abypj4504D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jotwani- Advocate Respondent By : Miss Pooja Swaroop (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income –Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani- AdvocateFor Respondent: Miss Pooja Swaroop (Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 254(1)

other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the orders of authorities below. The ld. DR for the Revenue argued that the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department made full-fledged enquiry. The parties from whom the assessee has shown the purchases are bogus Hawala dealers. The hawala

Dy.C.I.T., Central Circle, Agra vs. M/S Vacmet Packagings (India) Pvt. Ltd., Agra

ITA 45/AGR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

enquiry, the AO informed that only the above mentioned letter was received and no other supporting material was made available by the Investigation Wing, New Delhi, giving the details of the amount of Rs.5,50,00,000/- as to how the above accommodation entry was provided to the assessee company ... examining the documents produced by him, I have found that the reassessment proceeding was initiated only on the basis of a letter received from Investigation Wing providing only a general and vague information about providing of accommodation entry to the assessee of Rs. 5.50 crore by Shri Surendra Kumar Jain

ITO, Jaipur vs. Land Mark Dilsay P Ltd, Jaipur

Appeals are dismissed in limine but without any order as to costs

ITA 178/JPR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(1)Section 148

factual matrix of the case and also applicable legal position. The case was re-opened on 30/03/2012 on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing Delhi, with regard to share application money received by the assessee. Assessee has filed its objection for re-opening of assessment ... Gujarat High Court dated 22/07/2008 in ITR no. 41/1997). Admittedly, these statements were not recorded by the AO but were recorded by the Investigation Wing Delhi at the back of the assessee. AO ITA 178/JP/2015 & C.O. 18/JP/2015_ 6 ITO Vs M/s Land Mark Dealers (P) Ltd. has even not referred

ITO, Jaipur vs. Land Mark Dilsay P Ltd, Jaipur

Appeals are dismissed in limine but without any order as to costs

ITA 177/JPR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(1)Section 148

issued on 29/03/2012 by the ITO, Ward 4(3), New Delhi on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing. During the year, the assessee has raised share capital of Rs. 51,60,000/- (16000 Equity shares of Rs. 10 each and 50000 Equity shares of Rs. 100 each) from ... case, deleted the addition by holding as under: “3.3.2 The case was re-opened on 29/03/2012 on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing Delhi, with regard to share application money received by the assessee. Assessee has filed its objection for re-opening of assessment

Franco -Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, these three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4225/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tra Ishawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 143(3)

before Maharashtra Sales Tax Department, Mumbai by these parties. In the meantime, a survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted by the investigation wing of the Income Tax Department on assessee’s premises on 15.01.2013 and assessee voluntarily admitted bogus purchases/ receiving hawala bill without receiving in goods