“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

Mayurbhai Jaysukhlal Shah, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

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

ITA 319/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 319/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Mayurbhai Jaysukhlal Shah Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 601, Cross Way, P.N. Marg, Income Tax, Jamnagar Jamnagar, Gujarat-361001 Office Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax.Pcit, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afgps1754J (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 147Section 263Section 68

technical issue, the Ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted that reassessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer is bad in law. It is borrowed satisfaction and the reasons of reopening as furnished by the assessing officer, contain lot of mistakes. The reasons recorded were not spell out the belief

Sudhir Babu Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1352/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 69A

assessment for the asst. year 2013-14 which is beyond four years from the end of the relevant asst. year and on a borrowed satisfaction. The Id. NFAC failed to appreciate that the assessment could not have been reopened dehors tangible material and dehors any allegation that the reopening

Sudhir Babu Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1351/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 69A

Sudhir Babu Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1349/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 69A

Sudhir Babu Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1348/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 69A

Satbir Sagwal, Karnal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Karnal

ITA 1617/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Satbir, Sagwal C/O Tej Mohan Vs Income Tax, Officer Singh H.No.527, Sector 10D Ward-4 Karnal Haryana Chandigarh 160011 Pan No. Bdops3759N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

arguments that there was no reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, that there was change of opinion and there was borrowed satisfaction in the form of information received from Investigation Wing. It is networthy that AO did not mechanically initiate proceedings proceedings u/s. 147. Prior to initiating such

Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja, Khakhadabela, Paddhari vs. ITO WD 2(1)(4), RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed, to the extent indicated above

ITA 459/RJT/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.459/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja Vs. Ito Ward 2 (1) (4), Khakhadabela, Paddhari, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot - 360110 Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agvpj2529E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 26/07/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 25/11/2009 U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. That The Reasons Recorded U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Ld. A.O. Were Merely Based On The Suspicion & Without Any Tangible Material So As To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. Hence The Reassessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Quashed Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

verified by assessing officer and hence there is complete non-application of mind. Hence, the Ld. AO reopened assessee's case on mere borrowed satisfaction and without verifying details. 13. The reasons must show due application of mind to the information. Assessing officer also cannot reopen assessment merely because

Geeta Sharma, Sunam vs. ITO, Sunam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Prem Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 149

Ld.Counsel for the assessee, it is the AO of the assessee whose satisfaction is crucial for reopening and it cannot be a borrowed satisfaction. Also, as pointed out to us by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and not controverted by the DR, the jurisdiction

Jamyang Khyentse Yeshi, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT, DCIT, C.R. Building, Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 604/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A), After Calling For A Remand Report Under Rule 46A, Recorded The Following Findings (Para 5.1 To 5.5 Of The Appellate Order):

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Prem Singh, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

applied his mind at the time of initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, but has initiated assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. Moreover, the Ld.AO has sought information from HDFC Bank by issuing notice u/s 133(6) on 25.11.2021,after issue of Notice u/s 148,which clearly proves

Krishna Prabhas Agro Oils Private Limited, Maredubaka vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kakinada

In the result, we herein, in terms of our aforesaid observations, set aside the CIT(A) order and vacate the addition of Rs

ITA 546/VIZ/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.546/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishna Prabhas Agro Oils Vs. Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Maredubaka, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Aaics2638B (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Mrs. Hema Latha. K, Ca (Hybrid Hearing) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 12/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

For Appellant: Mrs. Hema Latha. K, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act in the case of the assessee company is invalid as it was based merely on borrowed satisfaction as that of the DCIT, Agra, without any independent application of mind by the AO. On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition ... view that as the Ld. AR has failed to produce before us any material which would reveal that the AO had acted upon a borrowed satisfaction for initiating proceedings under 8 Krishna Prabhas Agro Oils Private Limited vs. ACIT Section 147 of the Act, therefore, finding no substance

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Tecxpert Software Private Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 3079/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 148

basis of investigation wing report on the same party. This itself shows that the AO has proceeded to reopen the assessment with the borrowed satisfaction. 11. Further we observe that as per the Balance Sheet and information supplied by the assessee to AO as well as to First Appellate Authority

M/S. R S Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1513/KOL/2025[1513]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S R.S. Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Circle 11(3), 3A, National Library Avenue, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Alipore, Kolkata-700027 Chowringhee Square, Vs. West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcr0739H Assessee By : Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Bonnie Deb Barma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Deb Barma, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

held that the conclusions of the AO are at best a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report. Indeed it is a borrowed satisfaction. Besides the case of the assessee is squarely M/s R.S. Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2016-17 covered by the decisions of CIT vs. SFIL Stock

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 3484/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Hakani, AR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 68

Nayak 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reopening is bad in law as it was done on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, and there was no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer before reopening. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that

Manoj Kumar Dugar, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2170/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

duly reflected in the books of accounts, confirmations were filed, and transactions were routed through banking channels. The reopening was initiated merely on borrowed satisfaction from another case (Banka Group), without any direct nexus to the assessee. The reasons recorded do not allege failure on the part of the assessee

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Girraj Kishor Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, the grouds of appea raised by the revenue are

ITA 3769/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)Section 68

from DDIT (Inv.) Unit – 2(3), Kolkata. The assessing officer had not independently applied his mind and issued notice solely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. There is no live link and nexus to the alleged escapement of income. The assessee at the time of filing return of income made

Shri Likha Saaya, Nirjili vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- North Lakhimpur., Lakhimpur

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

ITA 50/GTY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumarand Manmohan Dasita Nos.49 & 50/Gty/2021 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Likha Saaya S/O. Shri Likha Vs. Ito, Ward-North, Lakhimpur Heli, P-Sector, P.O. Nirjuli, Borah Complex, D.K.Road, North District Papumpare, Arunachal Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam- Pradesh-791109 787001 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sarala Agarwal. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Jcit

For Appellant: Sarala Agarwal. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 10(26)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

jurisdiction to re-open, has been held to be vitiated and resultantly bad in law, since it will be on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. 13. Now coming back to the present appeal, when we examine the legal issue on the touchstone of the settled judicial precedents on re-opening

Shri Likha Saaya, Nirjili vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- North Lakhimpur., Lakhimpur

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

ITA 49/GTY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sarala Agarwal. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 10(26)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Old Ward 3(1)(3), New Ward 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1491/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1491/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2012-13 Ratnadeep Infrastructure The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Private Limited Old Ward-3(1)(3) V/S. 126, 1St Floor New 3 (1) (2) Neelam Shopping Center Krishna Nagar Chowk Ahmedabad – 382 346 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecr 5728 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 01/07/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-2012 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2011-12:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

well as on facts in upholding reopening of assessment u/s. 147 based on incorrect, invalid, insufficient and vague reasons recorded for reopening based on borrowed satisfaction without due application of mind.” 2.1. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.1491/Ahd/2025 ... well as on facts in upholding reopening of assessment u/s. 147 based on incorrect, Invalid, insufficient and vague reasons recorded for reopening based on borrowed satisfaction without due application of mind.” ITA No.1490/Ahd/2025 for AY 2011-12 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s Ratnadeep

Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Old Ward 3(1)(3) New Ward3(1)(2)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Gitaben Dineshbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 717/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

forming his own satisfaction as to escapement of income. The assessee argued that such reopening of assessment was bad in law, being based on borrowed satisfaction. To support this contention, reliance was placed on several judicial precedents including CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi ... reasonable and judicious manner. The formation of belief by the Assessing Officer that income had escaped assessment cannot be said to be based on borrowed satisfaction. The material on record establishes that the reopening was not a mechanical exercise but was based on cogent information and due satisfaction recorded