← All Phrases

“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
97
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
96
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
90
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
81
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
78
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
56
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. Shanker Gas & Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Amalgamated Company), New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4429/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Shanker Gas & Mfg. Co. Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. Ltd., (Amalgamated Company) For 15(4), New Delhi. M/S. Roopin Capital Pvt. Ltd., (Amalgamating Company), 62, G- 11, Sector-15, Rohini, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacr4397N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. D. Ostwal & Rishbh Ostwal, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17Th May, 2013 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2004-05, Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit (A)- Xviii, New Deihi Has Erred Both On Facts & ;N Law, In Upholding The Illegal Order Passed By The Respondent Without Jurisdiction, Violative Of Natural Justice, Without Application Of Fair & Objective Mind To Facts Of The Case & The Law Applicable & Hence Liable To Be Set Aside & Quashed & Declared Non-Est In Law. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit (A)- Xviii, New Delhi Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law, In Upholding The Illegal Action Of Re-Assessment & Assumption Of Jurisdiction Illegally By The Respondent That Too Without Issue/ Served Notice U/S 148 & Without Following The Statutory Requirements Of Section 147 To 153 Of The Income Tax Act, Therefore The Entire Proceedings Of Reassessment Is Void Ab Initio, Illegal & Unauthorized By Law.

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 68

processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on 04/01/2005. Subsequently, on receipt of information from the Investigation Wing, New Delhi, that the assessee company was one of the beneficiaries of the bogus accommodation entries totalling to Rs. 7.5 lakh, the Assessing Officer ... Assessing Officer mentioning the name of the parties in respect of whom, he made addition is as under: “3.1 The information received from the Investigation Wing, New Delhi, indicated that the assessee had received bogus accommodation entries from the following parties:- i. M/s. RSG Marketing

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gulshan International (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 115/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2003-04 Acit, Vs. Gulshan International (P) Ltd., Circle-12(1), B-20/1, Wazirpur International New Delhi. Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcg1201H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Satyen Sethi & A. Pandu, Adv. Department By: Shri T. Vasudevan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 22:04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Revenue Has Questioned First Appellate Order Raising The Issue As To Whether The Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Correct In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.40,02,780 Made By The Assessing Officer Under Sec. 68 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Treating The Share Application Money As Unexplained Cash Credits.

For Appellant: S/Shri Satyen Sethi & A. Pandu, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasudevan, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 68

Learned AR submitted that the reopening of assessment was initiated by the Assessing Officer merely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department. Referring to the Investigation Report of Entry Operator and certain decisions, the Assessing Officer treated the share application money as bogus mainly ... basis that the burden lay upon the assessee was not discharged. He contended that report of the investigation wing does not show any linkage with the assessee to form a belief that any income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee has escaped assessment. The reasons to belief