“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

Rajesh Vasantrai Doshi, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 3, Thane

In the result, Departmental appeals are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5900/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ranjit Singh Arneja, D.R

Section 132

found that no bills/vouchers/ books of accounts or any financial document was available for the period before March 2011. As per the Investigation Wing there was fire on 17.02.2011 and the copy of FIR was placed on record. As per the report of investigation wing, bogus bill for purchase

Rajesh Vasantrai Doshi, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 3, Thane

In the result, Departmental appeals are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5899/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ranjit Singh Arneja, D.R

Section 132

DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Provogue (India) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1578/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 5

Provogue India Ltd. 17. Brief facts are, in the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer found that as per the report of the investigation wing of the Department, the information obtained from Sales Tax Department revealed that the purchases made by the assessee from certain persons are not genuine

M/S. Sharmilee Furnishing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4859/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2005-06] M/S Sharmilee Furnishing P. Ltd Vs. The I.T.O G-F, Jmd Regent Plaza Ward - 8(1) M.G. Road, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan : Aahcs 5999 J [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri B.L. Gupta, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. Dr Order Per B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri B.L. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

conducted at the office premises of Shri Tarun Goyal, CA at 13/34, WEA, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi by the Investigation Wing on 15-09-2008. During the course of search and later inquiries it was established that Sh. Tarun Goyal had floated nearly 90 Private Limited companies

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Iservices India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee succeeds

ITA 5371/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Iservices India Pvt Ltd, Central Circle-19, Room No. 104, B-44, Malcha Marg, Chankya Puri, Ara Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aabci0800Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 195Section 40Section 40a

brief facts of the case is that 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. Consequently, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 09.01.2013. The assessee submitted a letter

M/S. Viagra Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3422/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh.N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charyviagra Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 308, Arunachal Bldg., 19, Central Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. Circle-Iii, Pan-Aabcv9360N New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R.S.Singhvi & Sh. Satyajit Goyal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sampurnanand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement .11.2017 Order Per K.N.Charyaggrieved By The Order Dated 29.01.2014 In Appeal No.380/10-11/352 Passing By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short “Cit(A)”]-Xxxiii, New Delhi For 2008-09 Assessment Year, The Assessee Filed This Appeal.

Section 68

same day/within few days to various parties from the accounts of the company controlled by him. As per enquiries carried out by the Investigation wing the assessee was found to have been using the bank accounts opened in different banks to route the entries through two to four accounts

Rajda Polymers, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-36, Kolkata

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

ITA 333/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 333/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajda Polymers -Vs- Dcit, Circle-36, Kolkata [Pan: Aadfr 2816 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 12ASection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 35(1)(ii)

made to the institution. We find that when the ld AO informed the assessee that Director of HHBRF had given some statement before the Investigation wing as per which the donation made by the assessee was to be held as a bogus transaction and assessee would be invited with consequential

Janak Pranlal Ladhani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-11(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5102/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shrir. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5102/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. ArjuGarodia

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Moreover the AO had relied upon the information received from the search wing during the course of investigation carried /conducted by the Investigation Wing on the Hiranandani Group on 11.03.14 and the evidence related to inter alia on money „ cash payments‟ received from various parties on account of sale ... Group of builders and developers and during the course of search proceedings, the statement of the director of Hiranandani Group were recorded by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, wherein the directors/promoters of the Hiranandani Group admitted to have received on money from the assessee and confirmed that

Muffazal Hakim Penwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3740/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3740/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Muffazal Hakim Penawala Cit(A)-28, India House, Ground Floor, Earnest House, Ncpa Marg, बनाम/ Shop No. 1-2, 246, A. R. Street, Nairman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Mumbai-400 003 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpp 1934 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Ruchi M. Rathod ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. V. Rajguru

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchi M. RathodFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

above parties/entities are found to have issued bogus bills to the assessee without delivery of goods. Further, from the evidences, as gathered by the Investigation Wing, it has emerged that the purchases made by the assessee from the above entities/parties are non-genuine and the assessee has taken accommodation entries

Pankaj Kumar Dani, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 341/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. KFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

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

Assessing Officer is within the realm of subjective satisfaction. Since in the present case, the AO had fresh information and tangible material from the Investigation Wing. At the stage of issuing notice for initiating process for reopening, only prima facie case is to be seen. Therefore, while relying upon

DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Topnotch Chemicals P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-12

ITA 6231/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6231/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Dcit 15(3)(1), Vs. M/S Topnotch Chemicals Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Private Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, Plot No. C-116, Maharshi Karve Road, Ttc Industrial Area, Mumbai - 400020 Thane Belapur Road, Pawane Village, Navi Mumbai - 400705 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact3865F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & प्रत्याक्षेप सं./Co No. 155/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Topnotch Chemicals Private Vs. The Dy. C.I.T. 15(3)(1), Limited, Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Plot No. C-116, Aaykar Bhavan, Ttc Industrial Area, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Thane Belapur Road, Pawane Village, Navi Mumbai - 400705 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3865F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 08/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm The Present Appeal & Cross Objection Have Been Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively Against Order Dated 18/08/2016 Passed By The 2 Ita No. 6231/Mum/2016 & Co No. 155/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)

Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148

Later on, the assessment was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department to the effect that during the year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12, the assessee had obtained bogus bills from hawala

Popatlal N. Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 19(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our said observations

ITA 5939/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Popatlal N. Shah Acit 19(2), बिधम/ 1802, Panchratna, Income Tax Office, Opera House, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Vs. Mumbai- 400004. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aaafpo468K (अऩीराथी /Assessee) (प्रत्मथी / Revenue) : The Acit-19(2), M/S Popatlal N. Shah, बिधम/ Room No. 207, 1802, Panchratna, Opera Matru Mandir, House Mumbai 400051 Vs. Mumbai-400 007 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aaafpo468K (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Mrs. Aarti Visangi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

observed that there was overwhelming evidence in the form of sworn statements of the aforesaid parties which were recorded by the Investigating wing of the department, wherein they had admitted that they were only name sake proprietors/partners/directors of the concerns and were providing accommodation entries at the dictates and directions ... certain material facts, viz. (i) the persons in charge of the aforesaid bogus concerns had in their statements recorded on oath by the investigation wing during the course of the Search and survey action, had admitted that they were only dummies and the concerns were as a matter of fact

ACIT 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Say India Jewellers P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5667/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5667/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Say India Jewellers Private Ltd. Income Tax-13(2)(1) Unit No.701, Block 1, Seepz++ बनाम/ Roomno.146,1Stfloor Sez, Andheri(E) Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 096 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-7171-K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Amod Prabhudesai,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Suman Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessed u/s 143(3) on 12/11/2009 at Rs.2,58,84,321/-. 2.2 The reassessment proceedings were initiated upon receipt of certain information from investigation wing, Mumbai regarding dealers indulging in bogus purchase bills and it was noted that the assessee stood beneficiary of such bogus purchase bills to the tune

M/S Anant Concrete Products Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, all the additions would

ITA 1632/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Premjit S. Kashyap, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

Meerut. Later on, information was received from DIT (Inv.), New Delhi that search under section 132 of the Act had been conducted by the Investigation Wing, New Delhi, in the case of Shri S.K. Jain group of cases, who have provided accommodation entry at Rs.9 lakhs to the 2 ITA.No ... illegal and without jurisdiction. The Ld. CIT(A) however, noted that re- assessment has been initiated on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing. Therefore, additional ground was also dismissed and appeal of assessee was accordingly dismissed. 3 ITA.No.1632/Del./2017 Anant Concrete Products Pvt. Ltd., Meerut

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Godawari Estates Pvt. Ltd

ITA 493/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rolee Agarwal, CIT - DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

show that the assessee was having some undisclosed income or having some unexplained money. As a result of inquiries carried out by the investigation wing they also could not gathered any positive evidence to show that the assessee was having any undisclosed income or unexplained money. If there

S. Jagit Singh L/H. of Late Sh. Joginder Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3187/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3187/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 S. Jagjit Singh Vs Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Late Sh. Joginder Singh Ward-50(1), Prop. Of M/S Super Industries, New Delhi A-515/1, Shashtri Nagar, Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aasps8033M Assessee By : Sh. Ramesh Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2017 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Legal Heir Of The Deceased Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.04.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-17, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

record. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the AO reopened the assessment on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing i.e. from the ACIT, Central Circle-10, Jhandewalen Extension, New Delhi vide letter dated 13.03.2013 which was forwarded through CIT, Central-II, New Delhi ... present case, the AO had the reason for belief that the income had escaped assessment only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and did not apply his own mind. 7. On a similar issue the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner

Anil Bihani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 20/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Anil Bihani Acit-24(1), 12, Kakkad Comm. 6Th Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Complex, Below Sun- Mumbai. N-Sheel, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aadpb1860C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2017

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Peass Industrial Engineers (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 73 taxmann.com 185 (Guj) has held that: “Where after scrutiny assessment, Assessing Officer received information from investigation wing that two well known entry operators of country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, and assessee was one of such beneficiary, Assessing Officer

DCIT Cir. 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. P-Cube Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5019/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, M/S P-Cube Construction Circle-13(1)(2), Private Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.218, 02Nd Floor, 1/A/101, Umiya Nagar, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Visheshwar Nagar Road, Mumbai-400020 Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400054 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aadcp9320N

Section 69C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘डी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI "ी जो

Jaydeep Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3378/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3378 & 3379/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Jaydeep C. Shah Ito-24(2)(3), Flat No. 204, J. K. Tower, A-Wing, Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 603, बनाम/ Goregaonkar Road, Gaudevi, C-13, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 007 Bandra (E), Mumbai-51 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafps 5372 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 31.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Appeals By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.02.2017 & Pertain To The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha

Section 133(6)

year 2008-09. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that the assessment was re-opened based on the information received from Investigation Wing of Income-tax Department consequent to the search action conducted in the Mahasagar group of cases that the assessee has taken entries from

ITO 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Abhinav Grani Ceramics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6695/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6695/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito-9(1)(1), M/S. Abhinav Grani Ceramics P. Room No. 205, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., Shop No. 15-15A, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Poonam Darshan, B-Wing, Mumbai-400 020 Poonam Nagar, Mahakali Caves Vs. Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 8515 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) C.O. No. 96/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.6695/Mum/2016) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S. Abhinav Grani Ceramics P. Ltd., Ito-9(1)(1), Room No. 205, 2Nd Floor, Shop No. 15-15A, बनाम/ Poonam Darshan, B-Wing, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Poonam Nagar, Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Andheri(E), Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 8515 A (Cross Objector) : (Revenue) Revenue By : Ms. Hemalatha Assessee By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 31.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha

Section 147

justified in holding that re-opening of assessment u/s. 147 was invalid when the Assessing Officer had received information from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department that the assessee had received entries from entities indulging in the activity of providing accommodation entries.” Assessee’s C.O. No. 96/Mum/2017