Arun Ganesh Jogdeo vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
Dept directed to follow directions of Delhi High Court in 352 ITR 273 and to be vigilant and ensure that such mistakes do not occur. Dept directed to set up a self-auditing vigilance cell to redress taxpayers' grievances
The Income Tax authorities shall follow the directions given by the Delhi High Court in case of Court On Its Own Motion v. Commissioner of Income-tax 352 ITR 273 in other cities, including the city of Mumbai, in Maharashtra State. We hope and trust that the Income Tax Department will be more vigilant and ensure that such mistakes will not occur in future. We also direct the Income Tax Department to form a Vigilance Cell to ensure that there is a monitoring authority, which would monitor various policy decisions which are taken and a self auditing mechanism is required to be formulated to ensure that the income tax assessees are not made to run from pillar to post for the purpose of redressal of their grievances
Motilal R. Todi vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 147: Entire law on whether reopening of assessment in the absence of "fresh tangible material" is permissible reviewed
Availability of fresh tangible material in the possession of AO at the time of recording of impugned reasons is a sine qua none, before the AO can record reasons for reopening of the case. We begin with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), laying down that for reopening of the assessment, the AO should have in its possession ‘tangible material’. The term ‘tangible material’ has been understood and explained by various courts subsequently. There has been unanimity of the courts on this issue that in absence of fresh material indicating escaped income, the AO cannot assume jurisdiction to reopen already concluded assessment.