← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. Rungta Irrigation Limited, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2399/KOL/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025

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

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Rs.1,19,95,195/-. 4. In the appellate proceeding, the assessee did challenge the validity of assessment proceeding u/s. 143 on the ground of borrowed satisfaction. However, the issue of invalid approval u/s. 151 of the Act was not there and was raised for the first time before

Rungta Irrigation Limited, New Delhi vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2316/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Rs.1,19,95,195/-. 4. In the appellate proceeding, the assessee did challenge the validity of assessment proceeding u/s. 143 on the ground of borrowed satisfaction. However, the issue of invalid approval u/s. 151 of the Act was not there and was raised for the first time before

Rungta Irrigation Limited, Delhi vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata

ITA 2315/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Rs.1,19,95,195/-. 4. In the appellate proceeding, the assessee did challenge the validity of assessment proceeding u/s. 143 on the ground of borrowed satisfaction. However, the issue of invalid approval u/s. 151 of the Act was not there and was raised for the first time before

Rungta Irrigation Limited, New Delhi vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

ITA 2303/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Rs.1,19,95,195/-. 4. In the appellate proceeding, the assessee did challenge the validity of assessment proceeding u/s. 143 on the ground of borrowed satisfaction. However, the issue of invalid approval u/s. 151 of the Act was not there and was raised for the first time before

Rungta Irrigation Limited, Delhi vs. Central Circle 3(1)/Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2257/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Rs.1,19,95,195/-. 4. In the appellate proceeding, the assessee did challenge the validity of assessment proceeding u/s. 143 on the ground of borrowed satisfaction. However, the issue of invalid approval u/s. 151 of the Act was not there and was raised for the first time before

Kandasamy Govindaraj, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

In the result both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 365/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 364 & 365 /Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kandasamy Govindaraj, Ito, 56, Anna Nagar, Rayappa Colony, Vs. Ward -1, Kumarasamypet Post, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri – 636 703. [Pan: Anppg-2860-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

erred in not considering the fact that the information available on the record, presumably AIR information, that the appellant has cash deposits, amounted to borrowed satisfaction, thereby making the entire reassessment proceedings null and void. 1. The order of the First Appellate Authority is bad and erroneous

Kandasamy Govindaraj, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

In the result both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 364/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 364 & 365 /Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kandasamy Govindaraj, Ito, 56, Anna Nagar, Rayappa Colony, Vs. Ward -1, Kumarasamypet Post, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri – 636 703. [Pan: Anppg-2860-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

erred in not considering the fact that the information available on the record, presumably AIR information, that the appellant has cash deposits, amounted to borrowed satisfaction, thereby making the entire reassessment proceedings null and void. 1. The order of the First Appellate Authority is bad and erroneous

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vishal Gold & Precious Stones Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 951/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Acit, Vs. M/S. Vishal Gold & Circle-26(2), Precious Stones Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi B-5, Moti Nagar, Near Durga Mandir, New Delhi- 110015 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcv8836H

For Appellant: Shri Nagesh Behl, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

initiation of reassessment proceedings of the assessee vide issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, this is a clear case of borrowed satisfaction on the part of the ld AO. The statements recorded by the Investigation Wing were not forwarded to the assessee either by the Investigation Wing ... deletion of M/s. Vishal Gold & Precious Stones Pvt. Ltd addition of merits by the ld CIT(A). The very basis of reopening is borrowed satisfaction and insufficient and incorrect information. Hence, we hold that the ld CIT(A) had rightly quashed the reassessment proceedings in the instant case apart from

Lakshmi Dealmark Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 11(1), Kolkata

ITA 2410/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2025AY 2014-2015
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

relied on a number of authorities to canvass the point that the Ld. AO could not have initiated such proceedings on the basis of “borrowed satisfaction” and to emphasise that the “reason to believe” were not in consonance with the extant law. 2.1 The Ld. DR, on the other hand

Sunita Sarda, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 71(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmansunita Sarda, Vs. Acit, Circle 71 (1), 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aanps7143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Vidhi Mangla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 06.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,000/-. The Department Has Received Information From Office Of Ddit (Inv.), Unit 6 (3), New Delhi On 06.03.2018 That The Assessee Has Taken Bogus Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.17,25,000/- During Fy 2010-11 By Trading In The Penny Scrip I.E. M/S. Global Capital

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Mangla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

solely relied upon the information received from the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-6(3), New Delhi without any independent application of mind resulting in borrowed satisfaction contrary to settled law and therefore rendering the impugned proceedings u/ s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act null and void on account

Regis Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 972/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Abhishak Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 38 taxmann.com 403 (Delhi). So far as the borrowed satisfaction is concerned the Id AR argued that the AO has not applied his mind to the information received and extracted the same as received taking the same ... that there was total non-application of mind by the AO to the information received and he has only acted on the basis of borrowed satisfaction to reopen the assessment which is not permissible under the Act. In our opinion, the AO has to exercise powers as conferred upon

Yashraj Estates Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 9902/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

granted the approval to the facts recorded contrary to each others in the Form seeking approval, factually incorrect reasons recorded based on the borrowed satisfaction from investigation wing report, without examining the assessment record of the assessee company. It is pertinent to add here that though the approving authority while ... inclined to accept the contention of assessee that the action u/s 148 of the Act is void as the reasons recorded are based on borrowed satisfaction from report of investigation wing, without any enquiry on his own and even return of income and assessment records has not been perused

Akshay Kumar Rungta, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), International Taxation

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

reopening of assessment is void ab initio as the reasons recorded by the learned assessing officer is based on borrowed satisfaction and that there is no independent application of mind on the facts and circumstances of the case. iii. The notice issued under section

Shri. Anantula Vijay Mohan, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2060/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA No.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024 & SP 67/Bang/2024 Anantula Vijay Mohan, Hyderabad IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Anantula Vijay Mohan, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2059/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA No.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024 & SP 67/Bang/2024 Anantula Vijay Mohan, Hyderabad IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Karnani Solvex Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)

addition of Rs.1,00,00,220/- made on account of accommodation entry taken from the entry providers holding that it is a case of borrowed satisfaction while the AO has issued notice u/s 148 after analyzing the facts related to escapement of income. 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances ... surmises. The AO had no tangible evidence to initiate the re-assessment proceedings against the petitioner and the impugned action is based sheerly on borrowed satisfaction. Even if it is assumed for argument's sake that the transaction made by the petitioner for acquisition of immovable property at Pali

Mr. Gaurav Rajendra Malu, Jaysingpur vs. PCIT, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1206/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

counts, firstly the assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act itself is invalid and bad in law as it was issued on borrowed satisfaction and therefore it could not have been the subject matter of revision u/s.263 of the Act. Secondly that the ld. AO has passed the assessment ... assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions running into 40 pages mainly contending that the re-assessment proceedings were carried out on borrowed satisfaction and the same is invalid and cannot be a subject matter of revision u/s.263 of the Act. Secondly he stated that ld. AO has taken

Mohammad Ahatehsham, Raebareli vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 438/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

itself is bad in law and illegal on the ground that the reasons recorded for the issuance of such notice was made on borrowed satisfaction and without application of own and independent mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts

Vtp Foods, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7 (3), Pune

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

ITA 2878/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(2)

based on the explanation before some other authority. In similar circumstances, the assessees argue against the Department that Notice u/s 148 is issued on borrowed satisfaction, i.e. at the instance of Investigation Wing. Without prejudice to this, the manner of deposit and withdrawal thereafter of Rs.50,99,000/- also indicate

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(1), Kolkata vs. Sendoz Commercials Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 28/KOL/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.28/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata ………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Sendoz Commercials Pvt. Ltd…………..……...........……........……...…..…..Respondent 644, Marshall House, 25, Strand Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aagcs5174E] C.O. No.12/Kol/2025 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.28/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sendoz Commercials Pvt. Ltd …………..………….………………..….…..Cross-Objector 644, Marshall House, 25, Strand Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aagcs5174E] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata.............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tulsyan, Fca & Deepak Mudhra, Aca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 30, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal & The Assessee Has Filed The Corresponding Cross-Objection Against The Same Order Dated 27.08.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 37 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Revenue Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case.

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

therefore, the appeal of the revenue may be dismissed on this ground alone. He also stated that the reopening was based on only borrowed satisfaction and the Assessing Officer did not independently applied his mind and without looking into the material facts but simply made the addition in the hands