“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

ITO, WD-5(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Blessing Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 271/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata -Vs.- M/S. Blessings Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 228A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aaccb 1349 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr. For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dt. 19/11/2013, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The „Act‟), Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts In Brief:- The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance & Investment. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 22/09/2010, Declaring –Nil- Income. It Showed A Loss Of Rs.668/-. The Facts As Recorded By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order Are Extracted Below:- “Para 1.2.1 The Assessee Has Shown Receipt Of Under Mentioned Share Capital Of Rs.1,90,00,000/- & Share Premium Of Rs.188,10,00,000/- During The Asst. Year 2010-11. The Assessee Credited Rs.1,90,00,000/- In Total In Its Books Against The Above Receipts. The Assessee Claimed That The Detail Of Receipts Are As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

Section 250

compliance with the rules of natural justice. Out of the 22 companies whose names figured in the information given by them to the investigation wing, 15 companies had provided the so- called ""share subscription monies" to the assessee. There was thus specific involvement of the assesee-company in the modus ... given by it, and without reference to evidences in the form of statement recorded from Shri S.K. Jain or the material seized by the investigation wing to the extent used against the assessee, we hold that the assessee has not discharged the burden of proof that

ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Martand Properties Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6103/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singha.C.I.T., Cc -32, M/S Martand Properties Ltd. Room No. 32(2), Ground Floor, 324, Bldg. No.F, Master Mind Iv 3Rd Floor, Royal Palms, Aarey Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Colony, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400065 Pan: Aafcm8856N (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.255/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year- 2009-10) M/S Martand Properties Ltd. A.C.I.T., Cc -32, 324, Bldg. No.F, Master Mind Iv Room No. 32(2), Ground Floor, 3Rd Floor, Royal Palms, Aarey Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Colony, Goregaon (E), Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400065 Pan: Aafcm8856N (Appellant) (Respondent) A.C.I.T., Cc -32, M/S Martand Properties Ltd. Room No. 32(2), Ground Floor, 324, Bldg. No.F, Master Mind Iv 3Rd Floor, Royal Palms, Aarey Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Colony, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400065 Pan: Aafcm8856N (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh (Dr) Revenue By : Shri Dilip V. Lakhani (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh (DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 253Section 254(1)Section 68

search action u/s 132 or survey action u/s 133 A is undertaken against our company. No summons were issued to us by the Investigation Wing in the search proceedings of Jogia Properties Ltd. We do not have any relationship with Jogia Properties Ltd. 3. We understand that search proceedings started ... they have invested in the share capital of the company. No confessional statement is given by any of 5 shareholding company before the investigating wing Mumbai or anywhere else. The transaction of share investment by all 5 companies can be explained. Therefore while filing the return of income

ACIT Cen Cir 32 vs. Martand Properties Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6101/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

For Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh (DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 253Section 254(1)Section 68

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tayana Consult Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1566/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate

Section 147

reopening proceeding initiated u/s 147 as Page 2 of 17 invalid, when the same was initiated based on the confidential report received from the Investigation Wing, Unit II, Bangalore. 3. On the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that

S.Gopal, Prop: M/S.S.S.Jewellery, Salem vs. DCIT, Salem

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is

ITA 3363/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jun 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, JCIT

Section 132A

proper explanation with documentary evidence for the origin of the cash and hence, the Railway Police took the cash into custody and intimated the investigation Wing, Coimbatore on 13.12.2012. The cash was requisitioned u/s. 132A from the Railway Police by warrant of authorization dated

S.Gopal, Prop: M/S.S.S.Jewellery, Salem vs. DCIT, Salem

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is

ITA 3362/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, JCIT

Section 132A

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Emm Vee Infrastructures (India) Pvt. Ltd., Meerut

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4178/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Chander Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

regarding 1 non-existence of investor companies, as a result of spot enquiries made by her and later on corroborated by the Investigation Wing, Delhi and also ignoring various case laws in this regard, whereas, net worth of the assessee company was also not in commensuration with the money received ... copy Form 2, the copy of ITR acknowledgment, the copy of Bank Statements, the set of Balance sheets and also the AO through Investigation wing had cross examined the investors who had agreed in principal for having made the investments. Pages 80 to 124 and page 135 to 144 Investigation

Hopewin Admark & Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1720/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 146Section 147Section 148Section 68

return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Subsequently, on receipt of information from the investigation wing, New return of income, within 30 days of notice. In response, the assessee submitted that the return filed on 31/10/2000 might be treated ... amount received during the year. We find that assessee has nowhere asked for copy of the statements of the directors recorded by the investigation wing. In the reasons recorded, there was a clear reference of the statements of, Sh Harish Agrawal, Smt. Manju Aggarwal and Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, wherein

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Bhakti Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2922/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 68

Rs.71,00,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loans, as noted in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer, being mindful of the report of Investigation Wing that various companies ITA No. 2922/Del./2010 3 featured as accommodation entry operators giving bogus entries of share application money, unsecured loans ... assessment proceedings. Hence the additional evidence should not be admitted. Further, my predecessor has investigated these issues in reference to the observation of the Investigation Wing. The observation of the investigation wing is as under: “One important^ fact is that the amount of accommodation entries taken by an assessee

Jignesh Desai, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2205/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2205/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Jignesh Desai , -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-35(2) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Afepd 5066 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Miraj D.Shah, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Vijyendra Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2017. Order

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijyendra Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee on 27.9.2010 declaring taxable income of Rs 5,66,376/-. The ld AO observed that an information was received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai that the assessee had made transactions during the financial year 2009-10 with the Hawala Dealer M/s Mehul Traders (TIN : 27260365107V) for an amount ... above information was provided by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, following the investigation conducted by the Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, Govt. of Maharashtra. As per the findings of the above investigation (which is based on the documents found in the search and seizure operation of the said Hawala Dealer, statement under

M/S. Noor Saleem Rana, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 1045/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.P. Tolani, Hon’Ble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

order of the CIT(A) before the coordinate bench who vide order dated 26.04.2017 held that reopening merely based on the information from the investigation Wing was not valid and reassessment framed was held to be invalid and quashed. Similar is the issue for AY 2004-05, wherein, the addition

M/S Grand Slam Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1791/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

Section 131Section 13aSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

under: “21. It is not in dispute in the present case that the assessment was reopened on the basis of information received from the investigation wing of the department about the existence of accommodation entry providers and their "modus operandi" in which the assessee was also found to be involved ... into by the assessee during the year under consideration. It has further been recorded by the Tribunal that as per the information of the investigation wing, the names of the persons issuing the cheques, the cheque amounts, dates etc., were also mentioned providing a link between the entry providers

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Greenland Finance and Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1528/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kanti.T. Appeal No. 1528/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2003-04. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Greenland Finance & Ward : 12 (2), Vs. Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 306, Sharp Bhawan, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi – 110 033. Pan : Aaacg 3755 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. D. R

Section 68

Spinning Mills P Ltd the facts are slightly different from the other shareholders, as in that case the investigation has been conducted by the investigation wing of Income Tax .and the found and established that Dina Nath Luhariwala Spinning Mills P Ltd only a entry provider there is not genuineness

ACIT, Chennai vs. Kannan Dhanasekar, Chennai

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

ITA 2115/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2115/Mds/2015 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Respondent: 17.04.2017

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 44A

gross receipts which is in order. Further, the Ld.DR argued that the admission of additional income on account of survey carried out by the Investigation Wing was not made available to the AO at the time of scrutiny assessment. Hence, the case should go back to the file ... verify whether the additional income offered by the assessee is sufficient to meet the deficiencies noticed by the AO as well as by the Investigation Wing at the time of survey. 5.0 On the other hand, the Ld.AR argued that the assessee is maintaining the regular books of accounts which

ACIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shantilal C. Sheth, Mumbai

ITA 2966/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra-CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 254(1)

assessee. During the search from the residence of Somnathan Nair (SN),an employee of Lodha Group, certain loose papers were seized by the investigation wing of the Department.The AO held that perusal of documents revealed that the assessee had entered into cash transactions with the Lodha group.He directed the assessee

Mehrauli Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 1504/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R C Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mehrauli Traders P Ltd. Ito 8(2)(3) 805, Corporate Avenue, Mumbai Sonawala Road, Goregoan (E) Mumbai 400 063 Pan Aaacm3556G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChaturvediFor Respondent: Shri M C Omni Ningshen

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

further observed that the fact of acceptance of accommodation entry is very clear from the information provided by the Investigation Wing. Apart from the above, in the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act dated 25.11.2009 of Shri Mukesh Chokshi, Director of M/s. Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd., in reply ... bank statement and the books of A/c of both the parties. Thus oral statement of Mr Mukesh M Choksi given before the authorities of Investigation wing at the time of search and seizure operation cannot wipe off these documentary evidences. Further when the transactions were conducted though the banking channel

Gudla Bhaskar Rao, Koraput vs. ACIT, Berhampur Circle, Berhampur

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

ITA 272/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)

Utkal Gramya Bank and the appellant has invested an amount of Rs.20lacs and Rs.64lacs in these banks. After the search was conducted the Investigation Wing and thereafter the AO have collected all the bank accounts of the appellant. There are 49 entries in the said seized papers

Yazdani International (P) Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 17/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)

ACIT, Chennai vs. Meenakshi Ammal Trust, Chennai

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

ITA 126/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 11(5)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Assistant Commissioner M/s. Sri Muthukumaran Educational of Income Tax, Vs. Trust, Central Circle 2(1) No.61, Old No. 641, Investigation Wing, Ramasamy Salai, Chennai 600 034. K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078. [PAN AABTS 6980L] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Mds/ 2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment ... Assistant Commissioner M/s. Meenakshi Ammal Trust, of Income Tax, Vs. No.61, Old No. 641, Central Circle 2(1) Ramasamy Salai, Investigation Wing, K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAATM 4676Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CIT. ""यथ" क" ओर

ACIT, Chennai vs. Meenakshi Ammal Trust, Chennai

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

ITA 120/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 11(5)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A