“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

Puneet Singhvi, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kota

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

ITA 1294/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

surmises. The A.O. 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

Sushila Choudhary, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 638/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Katariya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Badgujar, Addl.CIT (Thr. V.C.)

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Sssp Consultant and Techno Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 719/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande

Section 133ASection 147Section 148

income on the basis of correct facts and tangible materials are not available in the instant cases. Further, the AO has entertained belief on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind, which is not permissible. Accordingly, the ld A.R submitted that the reopening of assessments of both the years under ... mind by the AO. Consequently, there is merit in the contentions of the assessee that the reopening has been done on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, which is not permitted. (e) No tangible material was brought on record to support the reasons that the loans were accommodation entries and they

Sssp Consultant and Techno Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 717/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande

Section 133ASection 147Section 148

Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 919/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

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

Mona Finvest Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 10(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3312/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mona Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Ito-10(2)(4), 201, 2Nd Floor, Aza House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaacg 9506 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Nishit Gandhi

Section 144Section 147

simply made on assumptions and presumptions; and; are simply made on assumptions and presumptions; and; iv. The re-opening is simply based on borrowed satisfaction opening is simply based on borrowed satisfaction opening is simply based on borrowed satisfaction and without any independent application of mind. and without any independent

Sunita Jajoo, Surat vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(4), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 882/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

After getting such information, assessing officer has applied his mind and then framed the reasons for reopening the assessment, therefore it is not a borrowed satisfaction. The assessing officer has also mentioned in the reasons recorded the quantity of shares sold, name of the scrip, and amount received on sale

Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(4), Surat

ITA 552/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo (Physical Court Hearing) 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat City, Surat-395 002 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलार्थी/Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 882/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) Sunita Jajoo 429-432, Golden Point, Near Bsnl Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 [Pan: Aampj 0040 K] बनाम Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Richa Toshniwal. Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23.01.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. These Two Appeals By Separate Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As "Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 21.03.2024 & 21.04.2023 For Same

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur vs. Ms Mayura Saria Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur

ITA 430/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 430/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

arbitrary without following the due procedure established by law and Act making it void ab-initio, further the notice was issued under borrowed satisfaction. The appellant further submitted that the reassessment has been made on the basis of statement of one Sri Vikash Agarwal the Director of Sky Alloys

M/S Suncity Niketan Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2101/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.2101/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Suncity Niketan Pvt. Ltd………………....….......…....………....Appellant 5, Clive Row, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aapcs4157E] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.17,99,28,555/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Treating Credits In The Account Of The Assessee As Income Of The Assessee From Unexplained Sources. The Assessee Apart From Challenging The Validity Of The Additions Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities On Merits, Has Also Contested The Very Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment Order As Well As The Validity Of The Assessment Order For Want Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250

wrong doing on our part. iii. The reasons recorded by you for issue of Notice under section 148 are not your reasons but borrowed satisfaction from Investigation Wing and the re-assessment proceedings based on such borrowed reasons is without jurisdiction, illegal and void ab initio and is liable

Mangu Singh, Bhiwadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1466/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalmangu Singh, Vpo- Mirchuni, Tapukara, Bhiwadi, Alwar – 301 019 Pan No. Eifps8255E ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Bhiwadi …... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 251Section 69A

mandatory requirements of Section 147. The reopening was done without application of mind, proper verification of information, and solely based on assumptions, presumptions, and borrowed satisfaction. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 3) That on the facts

Raghav Agarwal (HUF), Kanpur vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 275/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraraghav Agarwal (Huf) The Income Tax Officer V. 563, Muir Road, Cantt., Ward-1(1)(3) Kanpur-208004. Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Aanhr2365C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68Section 69C

initio, bad in law, the Same be quashed. Page 2 of 3 4. Because the entire re-opening of assessment is based on borrowed satisfaction, applying incorrect provisions of law, without making any independent enquiry which the AO himself has admitted in the reasons recorded, putting the cart before ... horse, reopening on such borrowed satisfaction without enquiry is not permissible u/s 147, the assessment framed be quashed. 5. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 84,85,078/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 as against LTCGs claimed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle - 1, Madurai vs. Sri Rethinam Agency, Madurai

In the result the appeals raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1214/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1213/Chny/2023, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2016-17 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1214/Chny/2023, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sri Rethinam Agency, Tax, No.36, Old Betal Shop Street, Non-Corporate Circle-1, Madurai-625001. Madurai [Pan: Abifs4717R]

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

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

Revenue is the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) to hold that the reopening done by the Ld.AO was based upon a case of borrowed satisfaction. The Ld. DR had argued that no case of borrowed satisfaction had been made out as the enquiries done, inter and intra department ... fall in the realm of borrowed satisfaction. On the contrary the Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the assessing officer had merely relied upon the enquiries done by the ITO Thanjavur and drew his conclusions accordingly. It was argued that no independent enquiries were done by the Ld.AO

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 1, Madurai vs. Sri Rethinam Agency, Madurai

In the result the appeals raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1213/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

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

M/S. Shroff Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1951/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1951/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessee is twofold, firstly on the legal issue challenging the validity of reopening proceedings contending them to be bad in law and based on borrowed satisfaction without establishing any tangible nexus between the 2 M/s. Shroff Properties Pvt. Ltd. information received and belief formed, secondly, on the merits ... reason to believe which could show that the income has escaped assessment to the tune of Rs.10.00 lakh. It is a clear case of borrowed satisfaction and the reopening is carried out without any tangible material in the possession of the AO. The case of the assessee has been opened

Puneet Chopra, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 71(4), Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 461/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 131Section 132ASection 147Section 69

that the A.O. assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act on 4ITA Nos. 459 to 462/Del/2019 Suresh Chand Goel Vs. ITO the basis of borrowed satisfaction Investigation Wing, whereinthe A.O. had made no independent enquiry and approval has been granted in mechanical manner by the PCIT

Ms. Natasha Chopra, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for assessment year 2016-17

ITA 2292/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

quashing the reassessment proceedings framed for the assessment year 2012-13 as it is based on (a) incorrect assumption of facts; (b) based on borrowed satisfaction and (c) approval granted under section 151 of the Act ITA Nos. 520 & 2292/Del/2023 M/s. Basant Aerospace Pvt. Ltd by the competent authority

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Om Prakash Jalan, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 747/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 153CSection 250Section 69A

mind. The contents of the aforesaid para of the assessment order clearly shows that the reopening has been done on the basis of borrowed satisfaction from the Investigation Wing. That the Assessing Officer, on receipt of information from Investigation Wing, did not co-relate and cross verified the facts with

Satelite Trade Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 912/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

Hathras ITA NO 40/Agra/2017 has held that if the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment are based on borrowed satisfaction then the notice issued u/s 147 needs to be quashed as the same is illegal and void. 11. Reopening on Borrowed Information: Without prejudice to the above it is further

Tijaria Polypipes Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cirlce 4, Jaipur

ITA 616/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

said institution, sufficient material was available with Assessing Officer for forming an opinion that income had escaped assessment. Re-assessment is based not on borrowed satisfaction 30 [2021] 128 taxmann.com 229 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT BhanubenMansukhlalKhimashiav.Inc ome Tax Officer Ward 3(1) Where AO issued reopening notice on ground