← All Phrases

“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

Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Thane

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani Vs. Ito, Ward 3(2) 1 A/34, Drugs Society, Opp. Room No. 4, 6Th Floor, Jk Gram, Samatha Nagar B-Wagle Estate, Midc, Pokhran Road No. 1 Thane (W) Thane (W). Pan/Gir No. Aaupj0472D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 22.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. All The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Interrelated & Interconnected & Relates To Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Order Of Ao In Reopening The 2 Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai

Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

coming to the conclusion that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer has reopened the case on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, which is not permissible under the law. Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, in the case of Mohd

News Builders and Developers Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1769/DEL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshnews Builders & Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt Ltd, Ward-18(2), 1St Floor, Property No. 1, Delhi Khasra No. 619/7, Opposite Tivoli Garden, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaccn4173E

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Chawla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Appeal) is arbitrary, without application of mind and gross violation of the principle of natural justice and on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. 2. That in view of facts and in circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeal) is grossly erred and is not dealing with ... placing reliance on the dumb documents which is unsigned and undated. The assessee also submitted that the reopening has been made based on borrowed satisfaction as some information has been received by some other officer of the income tax department which had been borrowed

A. Jayapalan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 491/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Stay Application No.21/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Annamalai Jayapalan, 3/400, 10Th Street, Venkateshwara Nagar, Kottivakkam, Chennai-600 041. [Pan: Aadpj 3842 Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By V. The Dcit, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.K. Meenatchi Sundaram, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Mr.Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Ld.Cit(A)"), Delhi, Dated 29.01.2025 For The

For Respondent: Mr.Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam vs. Allebasi Builders and Developers (P) Ltd, Attingal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection stand dismissed

ITA 317/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

fact and the addition so made should be deleted. 4. The assessment order was passed without conducting any independent inquiry but on borrowed satisfaction. The A.O. has not made any independent inquiry in relation to addition made but relied on the information of the investigation wing. Therefore the assessment order

Ashok Kumar Jain, Meerut vs. PCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by appellant/assessee are allowed

ITA 2627/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhita No. 2627/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita No.2628/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ashok Kumar Jain, Vs. Principal Cit, Prop. Mange Lal Prakash Ghaziabad Chand, 45-B Gupta Colony, (Uttar Pradesh) T.P. Nagar, Meerut Pin: 250002 Pan: Aeipj3089E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Piyush Agarwal, Ca Department By: Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.06.2025 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar: The Appeals Filed By The Appellant/Assessee Are Against Separate Orders Dated 27.03.2024 Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Ghaziabad (Hereinafter Referred As ‘Ld. Pcit’ ) Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”) Arising Out Of Separate Assessment Orders, Both Dated 29.03.2022 Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act For Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)

assessee which covered the six distinguish Points which are briefly reproduced below: S. No. Objection Raised Disposed of by Non- speaking order 1. Borrowed satisfaction Yes 2. Change of opinion Yes 3. Approval u/s 151 in Yes Mechanical Manner 4. Non Supply of CTR No Report 5. Reassessment based

Jagdish Prasad, Delhi vs. ACIT-Circle 57(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2387/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Santanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Assessing Officer has merely relied upon the information received from the Deputy Director of income Tax (Investigation)- Unit-V which is nothing but a borrowed satisfaction. 2.2 That the Ld. Assessing Officer has not recorded any reason by using his independent application of mind to show that

Dr. Sarvesh Kumar, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 57(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2339/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Santanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Assessing Officer has merely relied upon the information received from the Deputy Director of income Tax (Investigation)- Unit-V which is nothing but a borrowed satisfaction. 2.2 That the Ld. Assessing Officer has not recorded any reason by using his independent application of mind to show that

Calance Software Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1441/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Calance Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 14/34 & 36, Dda Shopping Circle-5(2), Complex, Nangalraya, Delhi New Delhi-110046. Pan-Aaccc5176A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Harish Choudhary, Ca, Shri Mohit Choudhary, Ca & Mitika Choudhary, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

circumstances of the case and the provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed appreciate that the reason recorded are based upon borrowed satisfaction, bad in law and without application of mind and consequently the assessment order passed requires to be quashed. 4. That on the facts

Let'S Talk Institute Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-War-12(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2138/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 254(1)Section 68

purpose of making inquiries in the case of the appellant. Let’s Talk Institute Pvt Ltd  That the reassessment had been initiated on borrowed satisfaction and there was no independent application of mind by the assessing officer. (c) Your appellant, therefore, submits that the impugned reassessment, being not in accordance ... also raised grounds of appeal against reopening. The re-assessment was made merely for purpose of making enquiry. The assessment is initiated on borrowed satisfaction without making any independent application. On merit of the case Ld.AR submits that of the cash credit added by assessing officer has already being including

Niraj Jayantilal Vora, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 33(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1137/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1137/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-10) Shri Niraj Jayantilal Vora V/S. Ito, Ward 33(2)(4), F/1, 1St Floor, Mahalaxmi बिधम Mumbai Building, Opp. Bal-Bharati Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra School, S. V. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Kandivali (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400051 400067 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpv1500B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151Section 250

appellant respectfully submits that the reassessment made in his case is invalid considering the facts that (i) the same is made only on borrowed satisfaction, (ii) the same is made on incorrect reasons, (iii) the reassessment is in violation of guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court

Narayanbhai Manjibhai Bodriya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4699/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 50CSection 56Section 69

reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements for the proposition that reopening of assessment only on the basis of third-party statement and borrowed satisfaction is not justified: i. Shri Dnyaneswar Maharaj Sansthan Alandi Dewachi - WP 3309 of 2022 (Bom) (Pages 1-9 of Case Law Paper Book

Nova Formworks Private Limited (Formely Known As Wonder Moldplast Private Limited), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 27(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1724/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy[Assessment Year 2008-09]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

paper book: 4. Upon perusal of the reasons recorded, it is absolutely clear that the Assessing Officer has simply reopened the case on borrowed satisfaction without making any enquiry whatsoever. He has merely relied upon the report of Investigation Wing as well as copies of hand written papers. However, those

Romex Developers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1988/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1988/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Romex Developers Pvt. Limited,…..…………Appellant 23, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aafcr0812D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Chaudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 29, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234BSection 69A

completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. (2) For that on the facts and in circumstances of the case reopening of assessment under borrowed satisfaction is bad in law and should be set aside. (3) For that on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. C.I.T

Rahul M Dalmia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3883/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 Rahul M Dalmia Ito Ward 25(3)(3) 12-A, 5Th Floor, Raj Milan, Mumbai-400051. Dixit Road, Vile Parle East, Vs. 400057. Pan: Aabpd4501G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri. Bhupendra Shah, Ca Revenue : Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-4, Kolkata, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/ 1066557784(1) Dated 09/07/2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer - 25(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 10.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned A.O. Erred In Passing Order U/S 143(3) Merely On The Basis Of Borrowed Satisfaction, Presumption & Surmises. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned A.O. Erred In Passing Order U/S 143(3) By Issuing Reopening Notice On 19/03/2015. 2 Rahul M Dalmia, A.Y. 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 271

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in passing order u/s 143(3) merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, presumption and surmises. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in passing order

Khec (India) Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(3), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3064/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16 Khec (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O Kapil Goel Adv, Ward 14(3), F-26/124/Sector 7 Rohini New Delhi Delhi Pan No. Aabck8895K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69C

both invalid and deserve to be quashed in toto because the impugned asst u/s 143(3) is simply made on basis of "borrowed satisfaction" that is on dictate and direction of "investigation wing" and without any independent application of mind on part of Ld AO/Ld CIT-A; GROUND ON TOTAL

Aashiyana Infrastructure Development Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3033/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanaashiyana Infrastructure Development Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (2), Private Limited, Delhi. Plot No.830, Near Asian Hospital, Sector 21A, Faridabad – 121 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aafca2236A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 28.05.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 24.04.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2012-13 On 28.09.2012 Declaring Income Of Rs.31,22,410/- Which Was Revised On 21.09.2013 At An Income Of Rs.22,16,310/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Ward 1 (2). Delhi. There is no independent application of mind and reasons have been recorded in a routine manner and are based on borrowed satisfaction. 7. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC/CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reopening of Assessment under

ITO, Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Laxmilal Sethia, Mumbai

In the result, both, appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 588/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Laxmilal Sethia, Assessee in personFor Respondent: Shri. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. vi) Non supply of Verbatim copy of reasons for reopening. vii) Notice issued based on borrowed satisfaction, in mechanical way. without applying independent mind by Ld. AO. GROUND No. 4 The principles of natural justice were violated by Ld. AO as under

Kogod Basavaraju Jayachandra, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result the ITA No

ITA 1618/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

search u/s.132(4) of the Act. 6. The assessment proceedings u/s.147/148 are bad in law as the case was re-opened based on the borrowed satisfaction as the AO has not recorded independent satisfaction for initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. 7. The assessment framed on Appellant

Kogod Basavaraju Jayachandra, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 1617/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

search u/s.132(4) of the Act. 6. The assessment proceedings u/s.147/148 are bad in law as the case was re-opened based on the borrowed satisfaction as the AO has not recorded independent satisfaction for initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. 7. The assessment framed on Appellant

Kalpana Vijay Kadam, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 841/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.841/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kalpana Vijay Kadam, V The Income Tax Officer, Fi 13, Janki Heights, S.No.250, S. Ward-2(2), Pune. Baner D P Road, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Axzpk4350P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P. Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Manish Mehta – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 06.02.2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Affording A Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant. The Order Was Solely Based On The Observations Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) In The

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

than Rs. 50 lakhs, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. ii. The reopening was based on mere presumption and surmises, as it was initiated on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind by the AO. iii. The AO failed to appreciate the submissions made by the appellant and did not consider