“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

Vikas Bansal, Ajmer vs. Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5861/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvikas Bansal Vs. Circle 17(1) Plot No. 1693, Thakur 202, Kautilya Bhawan, G Block, Colony, Ram Nagar, Ajmer, Bandra Kurla Complex Rajasthan – 305001. Mumbai - 4000051 Pan/Gir No: Ahqpb6553J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69C

return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 21.08.2012 declaring total income at Rs.13,28,410/-. Based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2019. It is mentioned in the reasons

Abdul Wajid Abdul Rehman Sheikh, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cental Circle-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4850/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

income was originally filed declaring total income of ₹69,27,342/-. The assessment was reopened on the basis of information allegedly received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had transactions with Shri Abdul Wahab and that an amount of ₹35,09,056/- was found credited in the account ... Rehman Sheikh 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the information was received from the Investigation Wing and the assessee failed to furnish confirmation or supporting evidence in respect of the alleged credit. It was contended that the burden under section

Nishit Praful Gogri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3, Thane

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

ITA 3632/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 250

opening of the assessment is solely based on the borrowed satisfaction on the basis of information received from the Mr. Nishit Praful Gogri Investigation Wing, incorrect facts, without quantification, without application of mind. Hence, the assessment order is void-ab-intio, invalid, bad in law and liable to be quash ... person Shri Pramod Gadia and Shri Pradeep Saremal Jain who was one of the directors of M/s. Vandana Knitwear Ltd. recorded by the investigation wing, Hyderabad which discloses that there was no real business activity carried out by this company and was merely an accommodation entry provider

Nishit Praful Gogri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3, Thane

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

ITA 3631/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 250

ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ramniklal Shivji Savla, Mumbai

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

ITA 3525/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 37Section 68Section 69CSection 74

ignoring the fact that action of the Assessing officer was based on the information received from office of the DGIT (Investigation Wing) Mumbai, that all four were bogus and fraudulent entities, engaged only in the business of providing accommodation entries for bogus purchases and the assessee was found

Income Tax Officer 17(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Amritlal Nayak, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3485/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 68

return of income was originally processed u/s 143(1). Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing alleging that the assessee had obtained accommodation entries aggregating to ₹55,11,843/- in the form of fictitious sales to M/s Jash Dealmark ... disturbed and that the sales could not be treated as entirely non-genuine. However, considering the surrounding circumstances and the information received from the Investigation Wing, the learned CIT(A) estimated profit at 4.5% of the impugned transactions. Since the assessee had already disclosed gross profit at 1.77% on such

Nayna Mukesh Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 41(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1861/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ms. Nayna Mukesh Shah, Dcit, Circle 41(2)(1), 14E, Konark Darshan, Kautilya Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Jain Mandir Road, Sarvodaya Nagar, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mulund (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400080 Mumbai – 400051. Pan: Aoqps4652E (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

been done without application of mind and solely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction on the basis of the information received from the Investigation wing. Hence, the process of re-opening of the assessment itself is void ab intio, illegal and hence, assessment order is liable for quash

Unteswar Singh, Meghalaya vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati, Assam

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 377/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

circumstances, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7.2.3. It is observed from records that the Appellant has clarified before the officers of the Investigation Wing that Rs.3.5 crore was received by him in Mar’2013 in the form of ‘Unsecured loans’ from the parties named ‘Mr. Stelin Lapang

Unteswar Singh, Nongpoh vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

Unteshwar Singh, Meghalaya vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati, Aayakar Bhawan, Christianbasti

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly

ITA 375/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Patna vs. Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd., Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 373/PAT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-2 Ground Floor, Suprabhat 6Th Floor, Annexe, Central Building, Ceat Compound, Vs. Building, Beer Chand Patel Path, Phulwari, Patna-800001, Bihar Patna, Bihar-800001, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcp2484B Asst. Commissioner Of Income Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-2 Ground Floor, Suprabhat 6Th Floor, Annexe, Central Building, Ceat Compound, Vs. Building, Beer Chand Patel Path, Phulwari, Patna-800001, Bihar Patna, Bihar-800001, (Respondent) (Appellant) Sushil Kumar Kanodia N-601, Profesor Colony, Acit, Central Circle-2 Chitragupta Nagar, Kanakrbagh, Vs. Patna, Bihar Patna-800020, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agypk0702D Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

that a search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 04.03.2020, at the business and office premises of the assessee by investigation Wing, Patna. During the course of search and seizure operation several incriminating documents were found and seized. The assessee originally filed the return of income

Sushil Kumar Kanodia, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 237/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

Concord Biotech Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1744/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Urvashi Mandhan, Sr. DR

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

assessing the total income at Rs. 1,15,17,83,428/- under normal provisions. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing alleging that M/s Umiya Trading Company was a non- genuine entity engaged in providing accommodation entries, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice

Bhavani Ceramics Pvt Ltd, Mehsana vs. ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 977/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

passed without following principles of justice in as much as neither the third party statement of Elite Chemicals taken by department's Investigation Wing, Jodhpur, was ever supplied to the assessee, nor a cross examination of said 'third party' was allowed to the assessee ... relevant assessment year. The ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer is merely acting mechanically on the information supplied by the Investigation Wing Jodhpur that M/s. Elite Chemical on issue of summon stated that they have not made any sale and purchase upto 31-03-2013 and arrived

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Avs Corporation, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1627/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR &

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

said return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. 3.2. Thereafter, based on information received from the Investigation Wing (IW) consequent to the search initiated on 28th January 2020 in A. Shridhar Group of cases, Ahmedabad, indicating that the assessee was in receipt of on- money (unaccounted cash ... various details of the booked/sold projects out of which some allegedly belonged to the assessee. Therefore, by relying upon the appraisal report of the Investigation wing, the Assessing Officer formed the belief that the assessee received unaccounted cash (on-money) during the relevant previous year and the same escaped assessment

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Avs Corporation, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1621/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR &

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Avs Corporation, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1620/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR &

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Mark Steels Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2603/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

completed. The ROI was originally assessed under section 143(3) on 04.03.2014. The reassessment for AY 2011-12 was initiated on 27.03.2018 based on Investigation Wing inputs alleging accommodation-entry routing, culminating in an assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 27.11.2018 making an addition ... each credited in the assessee's books from Primary Merchants Pvt. Ltd. and another Kolkata-based entry-operator group entity, with the Investigation Wing tracing initial large cash deposits in feeder entities and subsequent layering through shell companies with nil turnover and non-compliant directors. During reassessment, notices under sections

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata vs. Avima Exports Private Limited, Kolkata

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1599/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

aforesaid receipts from the aforesaid three lending entities. The AO had also contended that during the said survey operation done by the Investigation wing in the case of Avima Group, Shri. Viswanath Gupta and Shri. Vivek Gupta, directors and key persons of the said group had admitted on oath that ... considering the aforesaid averments presented by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, relied on the statements of one unrelated arbitrary person recorded by the investigation wing and had made addition on the said loans received by assessee from the aforesaid lending entities along with corresponding interest payments without finding

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Shanti Devi Somani, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of revenue as well as cross objections of both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2503/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ld.CIT(A) noted that the denial of claim of long term capital gain u/s.10(38) of the Act based on the report of the investigation wing of the department has came to be examined by various Hon’ble High Courts and it was held that the addition cannot be made ... note that the share of Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. is not contained in the list of 84 penny stocks as brought out by the investigation wing and, therefore, this cannot be held to be penny stock on the basis of investigation report alone. The case of the assessee squarely covered