← 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

Sambasiva Rao Muppera, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 156/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.156/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Sambasiva Rao Muppera, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(1), Pan: Dcdpm0224C Guntur. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

ought to have appreciated that the AO initiated the proceedings U/s. 147 of the Act is on borrowed satisfaction and hence would have treated such satisfaction as invalid and consequently the assessment completed is also result in invalid assessment. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the appeal

Ms Regency Aims Private Limited, Kolkata vs. National Faceless Assessment Unit, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 93/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ms. Regency Aims Private Limited National Faceless Appeal 6, Hunger Ford Street, Centre, Delhi Vs. Kolkata-700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcm4986F Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra ChoudhuryFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

grounds which is extracted below- “2. For that on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law reopening of assessment under borrowed satisfaction is bad in law and should be set aside.” 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income during ... Regency Aims Private Limited; A.Y. 2016-17 assessment. In our opinion, the settled and finalized assessment is not allowed to reopen on borrowed satisfaction and without any application of mind to the information/material received. In this case, the ld. AO has simply relied on the report of the DDIT

Chiragbhai Jadurai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 708/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani nath, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 69A

erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of reopening of assessment though Reopening of assessment is on borrowed satisfaction and without independent application of mind. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of reopening of assessment though

Ashokbhai Shankerlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Oddicer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1262/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69C

puts the observation of the counter parties transactions but in the list no name of the appellant provided and so the assessment finalized with borrowed satisfaction and even not applying his mind and found any documentary evidence. [3] The Ld. A.O. has made an addition on account of the unexplained

Sejal Farms Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 406/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court and various other High Courts, the reopening of the case of the appellant is merely on borrowed satisfaction. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has not properly considered various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant. II. Addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain Rs.86

Shanti Farms Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 405/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court and various other High Courts, the reopening of the case of the appellant is merely on borrowed satisfaction. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has not properly considered various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant. II. Addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain Rs.86

Sudama Farms Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 404/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court and various other High Courts, the reopening of the case of the appellant is merely on borrowed satisfaction. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has not properly considered various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant. II. Addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain Rs.86

Shalimar Farms Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 403/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court and various other High Courts, the reopening of the case of the appellant is merely on borrowed satisfaction. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has not properly considered various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant. II. Addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain Rs.86

Subhra Dugar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-33(7), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 68

reassessment is bad in law as the reopening of assessment has been made without any independent application of mind that too on the borrowed satisfaction. 2 I.T.A. No.318/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Subhra Dugar 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 04.12.2012 declaring total ... hold that the reopening of assessment by the AO is not as per the provisions of Act and is in fact based on the borrowed satisfaction and also done without any application of mind. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai vs. Adarsh Estates Private Limited, Mylapore, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 722/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.722 /Chny/2024 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Adarsh Estates Private Limited, Income Tax, Vs. No.189/139, Golden Enclave, Corporate Circle-1(1), Luz Church,Mylapore,Chennai-4 Nungambakkam, [Pan: Aadca5788R) Chennai आयकर अपील सं./ Co.No.52 /Chny/2024 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Adarsh Estates Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.189/139, Golden Enclave, Luz Vs. Income Tax, Church, Mylapore, Chennai Corporate Circle-1(1), [Pan: Aadca5788R) Nungambakkam, Chennai (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Sonali Khatod, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Vide Ita No.722 Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059764842(1) Dated 16.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years

For Appellant: Ms.Sonali Khatod, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessing officer of making addition only on the basis of AIR information and without any independent enquiries constitutes a clear case of “borrowed satisfaction” which is not permissible in law. There exists a catena of judgements which postulate that an assessing officer is duty bound to hold his independent enquiries

Ambalal Patel Land Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2718/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriambalal Patel Land V/S. Dcit 12(1)(1) Developers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, M K 3Rd Floor, Prabhu Niwas, Road, 99, Jawahar Nagar, Road Mumbai-400020 No. 10, Goregoan (W), Mumbai=400062 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Awaaca9849G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Malav P. ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(3)Section 250

there is no tangible material on the basis of which the assessment of the Appellant is reopened; d) the reopening is based upon borrowed satisfaction and is merely reason to suspect and not reason to believe; e) reopening of assessment is beyond 4 years and original assessment order was passed

Harpreet Kaur Kaushik Manek, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 109/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

Assessing Officer does not have basic details of amount alleged to have escaped assessment. Thus, the reopening is merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction which is not justifiable as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Paresh Babubhai Bhalani vs. ITO (supra), Harikishan

Sanjeev Choudhary, Sirsa vs. DCIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, for statistical purposes, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 90/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Choudhary Vs. Dcit C/O Sudhindra Jain & Co. Central Circle 113/7A, Indra Jit Jian Marg, Ghaziabad Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur 208002 Pan No.Aeypc5911Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 251

erred in law and on facts in appreciating that the Ld. A.O. has recorded Reasons without conducting any independent enquiry and on the borrowed satisfaction of the Addl. D.I.T.(INV.)-I, Ahemdabad, therefore, there is no valid assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. A.O. to initiate the proceedings under section

ACIT, Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara Prime City Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 1301/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2024AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shaily Gupta
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

Assessing Officer to record reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It is no more res intigra that borrowed satisfaction for reopening the assessment vitiates reassessment proceedings. A plain reading of the reasons recorded by the AO, unambiguously reflect that the AO has reopened

ACIT Circle-2(2)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Lalit Kumar Modi, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8655/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 148

failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer had not formed any opinion in terms of section 147 of the Act but he proceeded on borrowed satisfaction which is repugnant of the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. 1.3 The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that

Lalit Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8466/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 148

failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer had not formed any opinion in terms of section 147 of the Act but he proceeded on borrowed satisfaction which is repugnant of the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. 1.3 The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that

Csquare Retail India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi, Howrah

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

ITA 976/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 976/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Csquare Retail India Pvt. Acit, Ltd. Vs Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant C/O Sbav & Associates Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income- 7/1A Grant Lane, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Officer, National Faceless Room No.202, Assessment Centre, Delhi Kolkata-700012 अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vinit Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Loviesh Shelley, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

action of the Assessing Officer in the initiation of proceedings and issue of notice u/s. 147/148 which was illegal, mechanical, based on borrowed satisfaction, without application of mind, and unsustainable in law as well as on merits. Tax Effect - N.A. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... parte without adjudicating ground of appeal for the action of the Assessing Officer for passing assessment order u/s. 147 which was illegal, based on borrowed satisfaction, without and bad in law as well as on facts, liable to be quashed. Tax Effect - N.A. 9. That on the facts and circumstances

Annadurai Balakrishnan, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Erode

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 499/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.499/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Annadurai Balakrishnan Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5/95, Periathottam, Ward 2(5) Oricherry Pudur P.O., Erode Bhavani, Erode 638 315. [Pan: Anipa 8909M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. K. Karthikeyan, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Karthikeyan, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessment on the ground of change of opinion but actually the appellant had challenged the re-assessment as it was based on "borrowed satisfaction". 7. The appellant submits that the assessing officer has re-opened the assessment as he had AIR information that cash was deposited in the bank account ... assessment made u/s 148 is liable to be cancelled as not valid as no assessment can be re-opened based on borrowed satisfaction as per the settled law on the subject. 9. The lower authorities below erred in not accepting the source for the cash deposited in the bank

Smt. Sudha Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no orders to cost

ITA 532/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

same, it follows that he initiated the reassessment SMT. SUDHA AGARWAL VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR proceedings on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without application of his own mind and therefore, reassessment proceedings and all consequent proceedings and orders including impugned reassessment are bad in law and not sustainable

Indus Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4730/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act being initiated on borrowed satisfaction, without application of mind, mechanical and unsustainable in law on merits; Addition under section 68 of the Act 5. On the facts ... Before us, ld. Counsel of the assessee strongly asserted that the impugned re-assessment proceedings initiated by the ld. Assessing Officer are based on borrowed satisfaction, without application of mind, mechanical and therefore un-sustainable in law. It was pointed out that the addition so made has already been included