“borrowed satisfaction”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1471,326 judgments

The decision most relied on for borrowed satisfaction is PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (395 ITR 677), cited in 471 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on borrowed satisfaction

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court

471

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO

338 ITR 51 · 2011 · High Court

295

citing judgments

Reasons for reopening an assessment must be specific and not vague, scanty, or based on borrowed satisfaction. The Assessing Officer must quantify the escaped income.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.

384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court

274

citing judgments

An assessment can be reopened if there is tangible material indicating escapement of income, demonstrating a live link between the material and the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessing Officer must apply their mind to the material facts, and the sanction under section 151 should not be based on borrowed satisfaction.

CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd.

325 ITR 285 · 2010 · High Court

243

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid and void ab initio if initiated based on 'borrowed satisfaction' without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind, or merely on documents already available on record without fresh tangible material.

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 v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd.

217 ITR 597 · 1996 · Supreme Court

180

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer's belief that income has escaped assessment, leading to the reopening of an assessment, is a matter of subjective satisfaction. The materials available at the time of forming this belief do not need to conclusively prove the escapement of income.

CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd.

345 ITR 223 · 2012 · High Court

164

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the sanction required under Section 151 is obtained mechanically, without independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, or is based on borrowed satisfaction.

CIT v. Atul Jain

299 ITR 383 · 2008 · High Court

147

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under section 147 are not valid if the information relied upon by the Assessing Officer is vague, scanty, and lacks specific details linking it to the assessee's transactions.

Judgments citing borrowed satisfaction

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri

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

ITA 1613/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

issue raised in ground no.1 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) upholding the reopening of assessment, which was based upon borrowed satisfaction without examining the records and without application of mind and accordingly, the reopening of assessment bas bad in law. 2.1. The facts in brief are that ... fully and truly disclosed his total return of income. In our opinion, the said reasons recorded by the ld. AO is just a borrowed satisfaction of the DDIT and not the AO’s satisfaction. We note that the ld. AO has not recorded is own satisfaction as to how there

Ramchandra Kadava Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 4360/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Jay Bhansali, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 69C

assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 is invalid and bad in law. (ii) That the reasons recorded being vague and merely based on borrowed satisfaction without any independent enquiry or application of mind, the notice u/s 148 is illegal and sustainable under the law. (iii) That in the absence

Vishal Singhal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 4106/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklamr. Vishal Singhal Vs. Nfac, G-35, B, Patel Nagar Iii, Ward 2(2)(1) Ghaziabad Cgo Complex-Ii, Purani Uttar Pradesh - 201001 Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Dijps2427H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Gagan R. Khandelwal, Adv, Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca, Sh. Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan R. Khandelwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131(1)(d)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

National Faceless Assessment Centre, for AY: 2016-17. 2. Heard and perused the records. The first issue raised was that the reopening reasons are borrowed satisfaction and show non application of mind. Which has been opposed by ld. DR asserting that reopening reasons are self contained. 3. Now what comes

Sumangal Jewels P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2357/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2025AY 2009-2010

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

income escaped during the year. We note that the AO has recorded a very cryptic reasons and it is a case of borrowed satisfaction and not the AO’s own satisfaction without any non- application of mind to the information received by the AO. In our opinion ... Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi)[26-05-2017], has held that reopening made on the basis of borrowed satisfaction cannot be sustained where the reasons failed to demonstrate live link between the tangible material and formation of the reason to believe that the income has escaped

Bhamiraben Prashantkumar Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 654/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.654/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bhamiraben Prashantkumar Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 14, Vaividhya Bungalows Ward-1 V/S. Dr. H.M. Patel Anand – 388 001 Anand Vallabh Vidhyanagar Road, Anand – 388 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Azcpp 7413 M (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Garg, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Garg, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 41. Moreover, from the reasons recorded it appears that the initiation of reopening proceedings are on the borrowed satisfaction as no independent opinion is formed and on bare perusal of the reasons recorded, it emerges that the Assessing Officer, considering the information received ... reopening of the assessment was bad in law. It was held that the AO has recorded the reasons only on the basis of the borrowed satisfaction without there being any live-link between the information available on the Portal and the assessee, the AO cannot be said to have formed

DCIT, Circle 13(2), Kolkata vs. Padma Logistic and Khanij Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1242/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1241 & 1242/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-13(2), Kolkata……..……………………...… ….……….……Appellant Vs. Padma Logistic & Khanij Pvt. Ltd.…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 3C, 3Rd Floor, Mukti World, 9/3B, Leelaroy Sarani, Kol– 19.. [Pan: Aaecp2189C] Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhash Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

though the relevant materials was in his possession. The ld. AR further submits that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and the same may be quashed. 8. Upon hearing of the counsels of the both the parties and perusing ... material facts necessary for the assessment. We note that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment beyond four years merely based on the borrowed satisfaction even there is no allegation that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment due to non-disclosure of the facts necessary for the assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolata vs. Padma Logistic and Khanij Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1241/KOL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Ramniwas Sharma, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Gaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 5066/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in law in forming and recording his reasons to believe on the basis of borrowed satisfaction which is not sustainable in law, hence assessment proceedings is liable to be considered as null and void. 5. That in facts and circumstances

Umar Daraj, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(4), Meerut

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

ITA 3095/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Umar Daraj, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2)(4), 153/1, Hapur Road, Meerut. Umar Nagar, Meerut – 250 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Ainpd8766H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 40A

Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in disregarding this fundamental defect and in upholding the reassessment order. 6. That the reassessment proceedings are based on borrowed satisfaction derived from an Investigation Wing report without independent verification by the Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the settled legal principles governing reopening

Girish Lahori, Gandhidham vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Gandhidham, Gandhidham

In the result this appeal was allowed, the order of the High Court was set aside and the

ITA 283/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountnt Member & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Judicial Membr

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

reasons recorded that some information was received, however, that some information has not been verified by the Assessing Officer, therefore, it was a borrowed satisfaction. When the “reason to believe” is not there, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and therefore, reopening of assessment under ... Gujarat) where it has been held that in the satisfaction recorded, the designated authority must reflect independent application of mind and not merely a borrowed satisfaction. The approval is given by simply relying on reasons without applying of mind and recording objective satisfaction stating documents perused and conclusion drawn based

Dindayal Magasvargiya Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Sangli, Circle Sangli

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

ITA 205/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.205/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dindayal Magasvargiya Vs. Acit, Circle Sangli, Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd., Sangli. At Waghwadi, Post Kameri, Tal. Walwa, Sangli- 415403. Pan : Aaaad0254E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 For Ay 2014-15, Being The Year Beyond 4 Years & For Which Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Has Already Been Passed, Thereby

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 438

recording the reason to believe which is based on audit objection. We submit that the reason based on such borrowed satisfaction cannot be the basis of reopening the concluded assessment. Therefore, entire proceedings are void ab initio. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds on the facts

Gopal Snacks Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 499/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT.DR &

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 154(3)Section 250Section 80J

erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s.148 issued in mechanical manner, in absence of fresh tangible material and on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without having reason to believe of escapement of income; ITA Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 10 (ii)On facts

Gopal Snacks Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 498/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Rajkot Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pan : Aadcg6113A (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee, Pertaining To

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT.DR &

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 154(3)Section 250Section 80J

erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s.148 issued in mechanical manner, in absence of fresh tangible material and on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without having reason to believe of escapement of income; (ii)On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred

Vinayak Tradevin Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 898/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmavinayak Tradevin Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata 41, B B Ganguly Street, 2Nd Floor, Room No13B, Kol-12. Pan No. : Aaccv8710B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P. K. Himmatsinghka, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Himmatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 292B

section 292BB of the Act. It was further argued that the reopening itself was invalid as it was made on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 3 Vinayak

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 5615/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

form his own belief but only the information passed on to him. No reassessment proceeding is permitted to be initiated on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. Further for the years that the contracts were awarded/executed, the respective expenses were not debited to the Profit & Loss Account as expenses