← 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

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas

ITA 3471/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

shows that the AO has coherently recorded the reasons and formed his independent view. Hence, the contention of the appellant that this amounts to borrowed satisfaction is REJECTED. 5.2. One of the contentions of the appellant is that the reopening beyond 4 years was not correct. Explanation

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3470/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

amounts independent view. Hence, the contention of the appellant that this amounts independent view. Hence, the contention of the appellant that this amounts to borrowed satisfaction is REJECTED. to borrowed satisfaction is REJECTED. 5.2. One of the contentions of the appellant is that the reopening

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. The Peerless Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd, West Bengal

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 912/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. R. C. Rai, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

mind solely based on some information received from the A.D.I.T. (lnv.) Kolkata without verifying the record of the assessee, hence purely based on borrowed satisfaction. We find that the assessment has been reopened based on the information obtained from the Enforcement Directorate and since the information amounts to receipt

Mrs. Neelam Agrawal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.756/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Neelam Agarwal ………. Appellant (Pan: Adcpa3772G) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-37(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, , Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 22.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revision Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kolkat-13 [In Short Ld. “Pr. Cit”] Dated 15.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Ao, Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.03.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Revising The Reassessment Order Which Was Itself Invalid & Bad In Law As Sanction For Reopening Of Assessment Proceedings Was Not Taken From Prescribed Authority As Per Section 151. I.T.A. No. 756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, Ay : 2015-16

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, AY : 2015-16 of mind and verification has been carried out by AO to unearth intangible material. Reopening is simply on borrowed satisfaction from Investigation Wing. He also submitted that the reopening proceeding carried out were firstly concluded by the AO by not making any addition vide ... been spelt out in the reasons nor any statement was collected where the assessee was named as a beneficiary. Reopening is simply based on borrowed satisfaction and the reasons have no live-link between tangible material and tangible belief. Ld. AO has alleged it to be a penny stock

Ram Ratan Jangir, Amer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -7(2), Jaipur

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

ITA 550/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatiya, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

records already placed with him both while filing of original ITR as well as during original assessment proceedings, merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction recorded reasons seeking approval for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. It is a well settled preposition of law that re-opening cannot ... frame his opinion/ satisfaction before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Ld. AO cannot issue re-opening notice merely on information received and borrowed satisfaction. Such act of AO vitiates the legislative purpose of providing such vast powers to the AO. If the original assessment is processed under Section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1202/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. AR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 151Section 250

received from credible department source without any independent application of mind on the information received, thus the assessment is reopened on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not adjudicating

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1150/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. AR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 151Section 250

received from credible department source without any independent application of mind on the information received, thus the assessment is reopened on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not adjudicating

Sanjay Sawhney, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4051/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

confirmed by ld. PCIT himself in his revision order vide para 2 & 4 of his order. Hence, this is a clear cut case of borrowed satisfaction by the ld. PCIT resulting in direct violation of provisions of Sec. 263(1) of the Act. The law is now very well settled ... that based on borrowed satisfaction by the ld. PCIT, the revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act deserve to be quashed as void-ab-initio. The provisions of section 263(1) of the Act clearly says -"The Commissioner may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this

Chinmay Impex Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 564/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 564/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) िनधा"रण वष" Chinmay Impex Private Income Tax Officer बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम Ward – 1(1)(3), Limited Vs. C/O. M. S. Chhajed & Co. Ahmedabad Ca, “Kamal Shanti”, Nr. Sardar Patel Statue, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380014 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcc6478J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri M. S. Chhajed, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2024 15/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 28.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Return Of Income For A.Y. 2013-14 Was Filed On 30.09.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,79,950/-. Subsequently, The Ao Received An Information From Dgit (Inv.), Mumbai That Assessee Had Entered Into Reversal

For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 151Section 68

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. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of reopening of assessment though ... standi in the present case and was not competent to grant approval of the satisfaction. He further submitted that the reopening was done on borrowed satisfaction and without independent application of mind. It was contended that the AO had not conducted any preliminary enquiry to verify the correctness

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Atul Ashok Parakh, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 305/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

erred in objecting the order of Resp. CIT(A)-NFAC without considering the fact that the case has been reopened on merely on the borrowed satisfaction. Hence, addition made is not justified at all. 4. Briefly stated the assessee is an individual. He is a partner in the partnership firm

Bright Securities Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no order as to

ITA 465/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 144BSection 147Section 148

under obligation to cause inquiries and to have reasons for issuing notice u/s 148. No notice u/s 148 can be issued on borrowed satisfaction. The following case-laws in this regard are quoted :- (a) CIT Vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. (2008) 217 CTR 209 (Raj) Reopening of assessment on borrowed ... S.L.P. Of The Department Dismissed S.L.P. (c) No 8167 Of 2009 Decision All 30/3/09 Reopening of assessment on borrowed satisfaction by Assessing Officer of lesser on the basis of opinion arrived at by the Assessing Officer of lessee on the same set of documents was invalid. In view

Antony Leo Sequeira, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2010/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Shri Om Kandalkar , Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 68

initiated by merely relying upon the information received from the Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Unit 6(2), Mumbai and the same amounts to borrowed satisfaction. Hence, reopening merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction is not permissible by law and therefore, the reopening is unlawful, unwarranted and therefore

M/S. Shanker Logistices (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 829/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.829/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Shankar Logistics (P) Ltd.….…….…............…...……………....Appellant 207, Maharshi Divendra Road, West Bengal-700007. [Pan: Aajcs8693P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata….....…........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 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 23.06.2023 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 Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.85,98,795/- By The Ld. Cit(A) As Made By The Assessing Officer Treating The Unsecured Loans Taken By The Assessee As Bogus & Thereby Making The Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee. The Assessee Apart From Challenging The Additions On Merits Has Also Contested The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

without verifying the veracity and truthfulness of such information. The information was wrong and the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without correlating the same with the facts of the case. Even there is no allegation that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1173/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, 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’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and therefore, the satisfaction derived by the Assessing Officer of escapement of income was a borrowed satisfaction. The ld. counsel has submitted that even on merits, the assessee had furnished all the relevant documents to prove the identity and creditworthiness ... 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. Therefore, reopening of the assessment in this case is held as bad in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1172/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, 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’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and therefore, the satisfaction derived by the Assessing Officer of escapement of income was a borrowed satisfaction. The ld. counsel has submitted that even on merits, the assessee had furnished all the relevant documents to prove the identity and creditworthiness ... 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. Therefore, reopening of the assessment in this case is held as bad in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1171/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, 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’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and therefore, the satisfaction derived by the Assessing Officer of escapement of income was a borrowed satisfaction. The ld. counsel has submitted that even on merits, the assessee had furnished all the relevant documents to prove the identity and creditworthiness ... 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. Therefore, reopening of the assessment in this case is held as bad in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1170/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, 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’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and therefore, the satisfaction derived by the Assessing Officer of escapement of income was a borrowed satisfaction. The ld. counsel has submitted that even on merits, the assessee had furnished all the relevant documents to prove the identity and creditworthiness ... 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. Therefore, reopening of the assessment in this case is held as bad in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed

Oasis Jewels Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 302/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Kolahai Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO – 409 ITR 595 (Delhi). 5.2 The Ld. AR further submitted that the reopening is merely based on borrowed satisfaction in respect of information received from DDIT (Investigation), Mumbai and there is no independent application of mind at the end of the Assessing Officer

Jayantilal Sanghvi, Indore vs. ACIT 4(1), Indore

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 539/IND/2023[A.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Jayantilal Sanghvi, Acit, 8/10, Warehouse Road, 4(1), बनाम/ Patel Bridge, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agtps5825Q Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disclosing truly and correct facts/material necessary for assessment. From the reasons recorded, it appears that the impugned reopening proceedings are on the borrowed satisfaction. No independent opinion is formed. On the plain reading of the reasons recorded what emerges is that the A.O. on considering the information received from

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Global Institute of Technology Society, Jaipur Rajasthan

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 175/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, (Addl.CIT)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

entire reassessment is considered void and illegal. 7.1 The question of whether the AO initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act on borrowed satisfaction is no longer necessary as it has already been decided that the AO did not assume jurisdiction under section 147 validly. 7.2. There ... interest on borrowed money was also there. Therefore under such circumstances no reassessment proceedings can be initiated after the expiry of four years. 2. Borrowed Satisfaction – As mentioned by the learned AO the reopening was based on information received from DDIT Wing. The learned AO did not inquire further