← 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

Lemongrass Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. -5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 947/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 264Section 68

extracted as below: “For that the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 after a lapse of 4 years was on borrowed satisfaction and not on any independent application of mind by the assessing officer and hence the reopening be declared

M/S Gassin Pierre Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 35(1)(ii)

against the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act without any incriminating material or independent application of mind which was simply based on borrowed satisfaction and therefore is illegal and liable to be quashed. 2 I.T.A. No.112/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Gassin Pierre Pvt. Ltd. 3. Facts ... I.T.A. No.112/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Gassin Pierre Pvt. Ltd. of mind to the information received from the DDIT(inv) and also on borrowed satisfaction which is not permissible under the Act and as a result the reopening of assessment as well as assessment framed

Sri Utpal Das, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Burdwan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 820/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

time of hearing, the assessee raised the legal issue that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was merely on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind and therefore the same is invalid and may be quashed. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return ... vehemently submitted before us that the case of assessee has been invalidly reopened u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on borrowed satisfaction that too without independent application of mind. The Ld. A.R stated that the AO has received a letter from Income Tax Officer (Intelligence & Investigation

Quadeye Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 792/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.792/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Quadeye Securities Pvt. Ltd..………...........………………....Appellant 184, Harish Mukherjee Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata-700026. [Pan: Aabce7790H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata….………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 07, 2024 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 29.02.2024 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 Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Disallowance Of Loss Of Rs.2,47,48,393/- Incurred By The Assessee In Commodities Dealing In National Multi Commodity Exchange Of India Limited (‘Nmce’) Platform & Further Making Addition Of Rs.4,92,263/- U/S 69C Of The Act On Account Of Alleged Commission That Might Have Been Paid By The Assessee In Booking The Aforesaid Bogus Loss In Commodity Trading.

Section 147Section 250Section 69C

platform of NMCE’. The Assessing Officer, without correlating the said information with the accounts of the assessee, reopened the assessment, which was based on borrowed satisfaction from the Investigation Wing. He, therefore, has submitted that reopening of assessment in this case was bad in law. 4.3 The ld. counsel ... other facts of the case and thereafter should have satisfied himself of escapement of income. Reopening is not permissible on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The powers of Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment, though wide, are not plenary. The words of the statute are "reason

Vimla Devi Meena, Dausa vs. ITO Ward- Dausa, Dausa

ITA 1034/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 234ASection 250

assessee nor proved then the notice issued u/s 148 is invalid. 12 Smt. Vimla Devi Meena, Dausa. 4. Re-assessment is based on borrowed satisfaction; The Ld. AO has issued notice u/s 148 on the basis of borrowed information from

Prabhati Devi, Dausa vs. ITO Ward Dausa, Dausa

ITA 1031/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

neither the escapement of income by the assessee nor proved then the notice issued u/s 148 is invalid. 4. Re-assessment is based on borrowed satisfaction: The Ld. AO has issued notice u/s 148 on the basis of borrowed information from the Sub Registrar for valuation of the immovable property ... assessment proceedings is absolutely bad in law and without jurisdiction and further AO not recorded his satisfaction and re-assessment is based on borrowed satisfaction which was not sufficient to confer power on the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings against assessee. CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex

Income Tax Office, Ward-6(2), Jaipur vs. Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 236/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ratan Lal Goyal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

mechanical manner, which has been done in the case in hand. Thus, re-opening of the case based on the borrowed satisfaction on the information provided by some other official without carrying out independent verification of the information with reference to whether assessee has sold the immovable property or purchased ... mind by Id. AO while recording the satisfaction of escapement of income before issue of notice u/s 148 and he simply proceeded on borrowed satisfaction reached by some other officials without verifying the same, therefore, the entire proceedings initiated u/s 148 deserves to be held

Comfort Intech Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1) Mumbai, Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2926/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income tax (Central Circle), Unit-6(3), Mumbai. Accordingly, it was contended that the AO has reopened the assessment on borrowed satisfaction. Further, it was submitted that Shri Anil Agarwal has retracted his statement and hence the AO could not have placed reliance on the above said

Comfort Intech Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1) Mumbai, Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2573/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income tax (Central Circle), Unit-6(3), Mumbai. Accordingly, it was contended that the AO has reopened the assessment on borrowed satisfaction. Further, it was submitted that Shri Anil Agarwal has retracted his statement and hence the AO could not have placed reliance on the above said

Jayshree Ravi Sancheti, Mumbai vs. PCIT-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2269/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68Section 69C

that the revision proceedings has been invoked by the ld PCIT u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, which is nothing but borrowed satisfaction. Hence the said revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act need to be construed as bad in law. Reliance in this regard has been ... this order. Hence it could be safely concluded that the revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act had been apparently triggered only based on borrowed satisfaction i.e Audit Objection and not based on independent application of mind by the ld PCIT. Infact the show cause notice issued

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Comfort Intech Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2218/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income tax (Central Circle), Unit-6(3), Mumbai. Accordingly, it was contended that the AO has reopened the assessment on borrowed satisfaction. Further, it was submitted that Shri Anil Agarwal has retracted his statement and hence the AO could not have placed reliance on the above said

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Comfort Intech Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2216/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income tax (Central Circle), Unit-6(3), Mumbai. Accordingly, it was contended that the AO has reopened the assessment on borrowed satisfaction. Further, it was submitted that Shri Anil Agarwal has retracted his statement and hence the AO could not have placed reliance on the above said

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Comfort Intech Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2212/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income tax (Central Circle), Unit-6(3), Mumbai. Accordingly, it was contended that the AO has reopened the assessment on borrowed satisfaction. Further, it was submitted that Shri Anil Agarwal has retracted his statement and hence the AO could not have placed reliance on the above said

Prasant Desai, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 61, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 735/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.735/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Prasant Desai……..……………….………...........………………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite – 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Acypd1511B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-61, Kolkata.……………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 25, 2024 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 26.02.2024 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 Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.75,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unsecured Loans Received From M/S Festive Deal Trade Pvt. Ltd. Treating The Same As Bogus.

Section 147Section 148Section 250

other facts of the case and thereafter should have satisfied himself of escapement of income. Reopening is not permissible on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. That such reasons to believe must have a material bearing on the question of escapement of income. It does not mean

M/S Flora Exports, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 31(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 502/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.502/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Flora Exports……………….………...........………………....Appellant 17/2/H/13, Smith Lane, Taltala, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Aabff1684J] Vs. Ito, Ward-31(1), Kolkata.……………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 01, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 25, 2024 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 14.12.2023 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 Has Taken The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 151Section 250

other facts of the case and thereafter should have satisfied himself of escapement of income. Reopening is not permissible on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. It does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the assessing authority. The powers of Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment ... consulting the assessment records and correlating the information with the accounts of the assessee, simply proceeded to reopen the assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction from the information of Investigation Wing, hence, such an action of Assessing Officer would fall short of the reasons to believe of escapement

Jitendra Vallabhdas Sanghavi, Ghatkopar East vs. Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 27(1) Mumbai, Vashi Station Complex

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

ITA 2793/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Jitendra Vallabhdas Sanghavi, Commissioner Of Income 13, Marwadi Chawl, M.G. Road, Tax, Circle 27(1), ‘ Vs. Ghatkopar East, Mumbai Mumbai – 400077 (Pan : Azdps2873H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : None Revenue : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the order and under section 143(3) merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, presumption and surmises, as such the order is unreasonable, arbitrary against principle natural justice, against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore liable

Export Import Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl. Jt. Dy. Asst. CIT Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2917/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Export Import Bank Of India Pcit, Mumbai-3, Mumbai World Trade Centre Complex, Vs Centre One Building, Floor 21, Colaba S.O., Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaace 2769 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

merely based on change of opinion / absence of new tangible material; and/or (b) based on audit objection which represents borrowed satisfaction and non-application of mind by the Ld. AO; and/or 2 Export Import Bank of India A.Y. 2014-15 (C) Without following the settled principle of law of rule

Smt. Rekha Ganesh, Davangere vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Davangere

ITA 1275/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

Thus, according to the assessee, the reopening was done merely on the basis of the information received from the investigation wing, which represents the borrowed satisfaction of the AO whereas it is mandatory that there should be independent formation of prima facie belief of the AO that the income ... before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 388 contended that the reopening was done based on the borrowed satisfaction on the information received from the investigation wing and without independent application of mind of the AO. 14. Likewise, the Id. AR further submitted that the proceedings

Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

ITA 681/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 253(5)

because of Change of opinion • Reopening merely on the basis of Audit Objection with regards to interpretation of law • Reopening on the basis of Borrowed Satisfaction 1. Assessee company filed its original Return of Income on 27.09.2012 [PB 1-3]. The case of assessee company was selected for scrutiny. Details ... apply his mind at all. He just agreed to what was provided to him and, therefore, it is a case of borrowed satisfaction. 16. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that no valid reopening can take place when there is borrowed satisfaction, therefore

Aadhunik Infrastructure Development Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 439/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. Thus there was no borrowed satisfaction on the part of the AO. There was independent application of mind on the part of the AO. Further reliance is placed upon clause ... settled position in law that re- opening notice has to be issued by the Assessing Office on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. 15. Therefore, in the above facts, the view taken by the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. This view