“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

Mohemadmustafa A. Khan, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2970/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

declaring total income of Rs.5,68,600/- for the assessment year under consideration. On the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of Sales Tax Department, AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act to the assessee. AO found that assessee made purchases from four suppliers namely, (1) Kripa Multitrade

Konark Structural Engg Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5488/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Revenue by B Sriniwas, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

dated 20-02-2015 be not revised under section 263 of the Act for the reason that the AO has received information from the investigation wing of the Income Tax Department during the course of reassessment proceedings in respect of bogus purchases and receipt of share premium ... made addition in respect to the share premium. 5. In view of the discussion above, it is evident that information that was received from Investigation Wing vide letter dated 07.03.2014 was not used by the Assessing officer in the re-assessment proceeding which he completed on 20.02.2015. therefore, I consider

Sunil Agarwal, Haridwar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3)(3), Haridwar

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year : 2008-09 Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar Laxmi Niwas, Near Post Office, Kankhal, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Pan: Aanpa0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush KrFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69B

issuing the notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had tangible material in the form of information received from the Investigation Wing. The Assessing Officer did not proceed to any hearsay, conjecture or surmises. He stated that following decisions may be kindly considered with regard ... assessment in that case were more or less similar to the reasons in the present case, viz., information was received from the Investigation Wing regarding accommodation entries provided by a 'known' accommodation entry provider. There, on facts, the Court came to the conclusion that the reasons were, in fact

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Quality Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection

ITA 5962/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2007-08 Acit, Central Circle- 30, Quality Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 13, Ground Floor, Room No.5, Vs. B.B. Ganguli Street, Punarnava, Kolkata.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

from para 5.4 onwards read as under :- “5.4 I have carefully considered assessment order, written submissions, statements recorded by the Investigation Wing, case laws relied upon and oral arguments of Ld.AR. The objections/arguments of the appellant are discussed as under:- (i) In this case the original return of income

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pavitra Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection

ITA 5959/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2007-08 Acit, Central Circle- 30, Pavitra Trexim Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 13, Ground Floor, Room No.5, Vs. B.B. Ganguli Street, Punarnava, Kolkata.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Adarsh Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 5331/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaa.Y. 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goyal, CA & Sh. Nipun Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 54F

under the head long term capital gain. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Department on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy Group of cases. Simultaneous search operation under section

Hiralal Motilal Jewellers, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 43, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 104/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Hiralal Motila Jewellers................................………………………………………...............Appellant C/O D.J. Shah & Co., Kalyan Bhavan, 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan: Aadfh 8943 E] Acit Circle 43 Kolkata...................……………………………………………..................Respondent 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata – 700 001. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Bandopadhya, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 11, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 24, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata Dated 25.09.2017. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Partnership Firm Which Is Carrying On The Business Of Jewelers. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By It Originally On 31.10.2007 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 5,20,450/-. The Said Return Was Initially Accepted By The A.O. Under Section U/S 143(1) On 27.02.2009. The A.O, Thereafter Received Information That M/S. Vitrag Jewels Was One Of The Firms Providing Bogus Entries. In His Statement Recorded By The Department, Shri Rajendra Jain, Employee Of The Said Concern Confessed That He Was Managing Various Concerns In Order To Provide Bogus Sale Bills To Domestic Concerns For The Diamonds. He Stated That The Concerns Which Were Purchasing Diamond In Cash From Grey

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

August 4, 2016 ITAT Delhi, held that ‘assessee is one among many persons who may have attempted to benefit from the alleged racketeering. When investigation wing of Income Tax Department has busted the racket of bogus accommodation entries; and when the alleged entry operators have admitted on oath that they

P.P. Enterprises, Panvel vs. Income-Tax Officer, Panvel

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

ITA 1010/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)

income on 15.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.3,16,469/- for the assessment year under consideration. On the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of Sales Tax Department to the effect that certain persons have provided accommodation entries along with other beneficiaries for 3 P.P. Enterprises. bogus purchases

Ketan Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. The ACIT, Central-Circle-2(3), Nagpur

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 428/NAG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 428 To 430/Nag/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10) Ketan Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Gupta House, Civil Lines, Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), बनाम/ C/O. M/S. Loya Bagri & Co., Nagpur-440 001 Vs. Chartered Accountants, Gandhibag, Nagpur-400 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaack 6099 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Loya ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Milind Bhusari सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 10.05.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 23.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) For The Concerned The Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari

Section 132Section 153CSection 234ASection 43(5)

incriminating documents were found and seized. However no incriminating documents were found. Throughout the post search proceedings, the assessee made repeated requests to the investigation wing & to AO provide the copy of the statements recorded in case of the assessee. However, neither was the request for inspection and procurement

Dharam Pal Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 98/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal CA and Shri O.P. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, CIT - DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

High Court in the case of CIT vs Pooja Agrawal ITA No. 385/2011 has held that additions made on the basis of information from investigation wing is to be supported with findings from independent enquiries. It is further submitted that assessee was not supplied with copies of statements

Jewelry Unlimited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 651/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Pradip N. Kapasi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR

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

saddled with addition of Rs.3 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases in the reassessment proceedings. Pursuant to receipt of certain information from the investigation wing regarding certain groups / entities indulging in providing accommodation entries in the nature of bogus bills, it was found that that the assessee stood beneficiary

A.B.Exports, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-19(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1455/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Mrugakshi K. Joshi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee was engaged in the business of export of diamonds. 2.1 The reassessment proceedings were initiated upon receipt of certain information from investigation wing of the department that the assessee made suspicious purchases of Rs.5,85,200/- from an entity namely Maniprabha Impex Private Limited. The said entity was part ... reasons to believe that certain income has escaped assessment. In the present case, the reopening has been initiated upon receipt of concrete information from investigation wing which suggested escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, we concur with the stand of Ld. first appellate authority in upholding

Siddhant Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -5(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1103/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Mrugakshi Joshi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

engaged in manufacturing & trading of gold, platinum & silver Jewellery including studded jewellery. 2.1 The reassessment proceedings were initiated upon receipt of certain information from investigation wing of the department that the assessee made suspicious purchases of Rs.7,26,494/- from an entity namely A2 Jewels. The said entity was part ... reasons to believe that certain income has escaped assessment. In the present case, the reopening has been initiated upon receipt of concrete information from investigation wing which suggested escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, we concur with the stand of Ld. first appellate authority in this

Jewelry Unlimited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 653/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Pradip N. Kapasi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR

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

Jewelry Unlimited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 652/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Pradip N. Kapasi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR

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

Jewelry Unlimited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 650/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Pradip N. Kapasi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR

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

Har Gobind & Sons, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1108/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

produce it. It was notice that Shri Nilesh Parmar was the proprietor of M/s Mohit International and he had also confessed before the Investigation wing that he was providing only accommodation bills. Hence the AO asked the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases. The assessee furnished copies of purchase

The ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Sri K.Radha Krishna, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 65/VIZ/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Shri Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR

Section 132(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

been included in the income of earlier year the same cannot be included again for the year under consideration as unexplained cash balance. The investigation wing has thoroughly searched my residential (d) premises, professional premises and also the lockers and finally traced out the said cash balance. Hence, the reflection

M/S. Cygnus Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250

accommodation entries, which information was given to him by the Director Investigation, the A.O. stated: ‘I have also perused various materials and report from Investigation Wing 10 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Cygnus Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd and on that basis it is evident that the assessee

Chemex Goods Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2402/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A. No. 2402/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Chemex Goods Pvt. Ltd.......................................................................................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, 2Nd Floor, Suite-213, Kolkata – 700 069. [Pan : Aabcc 2614 G] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Ward 10(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 16, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2018 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Cit (Appeals) – 4, Kolkata Dated 06.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 250

Officer disallowed this loss based on a statement from Shri Sachet Saraf, Director of M/s. Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. recorded on 23.03.2013 by the Investigation Wing which had carried on a Search & Seizure Operation under section 132 of the Act. It is stated that Shri Sachet 2 I.T.A. No. 2402/Kol/2017