“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

Rajesh Goyal, New Delhi vs. DCIT CC-14, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and as a consequential effect, impugned assessment is quashed

ITA 331/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Rajesh Goyal Vs. Dcit Ff, Plot No.32, Road No.43, Cc-14 West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aalpg2490F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/05/2024

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

conclusion that the reasons were infact in the form of conclusions “one after the other” and the satisfaction arrived by the AO was “borrowed satisfaction” and at best “reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report”. The same is the case before us. The crucial link between the information made

Alma Assets Consultancy Private Limited., Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1092/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1092/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Alma Assets Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.………............…...……………....Appellant 341-K1, Post Office: Sahabana, Chandigarh Road, Mundian Khurd Ludhiana. [Pan: Aaica6234H] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20 , 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 21.08.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] 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.10,26,99,100/- Made By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Cash Credits Into The Income Of The Assessee. 3. The Assessee Through Its Grounds Of Appeal Has Contested Not Only The Validity Of The Additions On Merits But Also Relating To The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act & Also The Validity Of The Assessment For Want Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

enough to form the belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. The satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer was a borrowed satisfaction. It has been held time and again that the belief of the Assessing Officer regarding escapement of income should be based on some tangible material ... should be based on his own satisfaction after going through the records and further that the reopening of the assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction by blindly relying upon the information from the Investigation Wing cannot be held to be justified. The assessee succeeds on this ground

Income Tax Officer, Vejalpur vs. Digital Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Memnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1058/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2016-17 Digital Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, Vs A/9, Yashprabha Apartment, Ward-1(1)(3), Behind Janta Ice Cream, Ahmedabad Gurukul Road, Memnagar, Ahmedabad -380052 Pan : Aaccd 1831 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

also been made by the counsel for the assessee inter alia reasons are absolutely vague, scanty and non-specific; reopening is merely based on borrowed satisfaction; reopening is beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year; reopening is merely based on changed opinion. However, considering

Rekha Nilesh Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 32(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2300/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

perusal of the reasons for reopening would clearly show that the assessment for assessment year 2013-14 has been reopened merely on borrowed satisfaction. It is a well settled law that for reopening of assessment, the Assessing Officer has to record his own satisfaction, reopening on the basis of borrowed ... assessee has assailed validity of reopening of assessment. The primary argument of assessee is, that the assessment has been reopened on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, therefore, the reopening is bad in law. A perusal of the reasons for reopening at page No. 3 of the paper book shows that

Sukh Darshan Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward.43(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2233/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 54F

root of Matter Ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s National Thermal Power Co Ltd vs.CIT, 229 ITR 383. B.) Borrowed satisfaction of A.O. Mechanical Approval & No independent Application of Mind of PCIT u/s 151 CIT vs M/s S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals

Maunang Farms Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), (Now ACIT., Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 110/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

fact that reopening of the case of the appellant company under section 147 of the Act by the Ld.AO merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without application of mind in absence of any tangible material and /or independent clinching evidence as well as cogent material evidence on record ... Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court and various other High Courts, the reopening of the case of the appellant company is merely on borrowed satisfaction. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has not properly considered various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant company. II. Addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Arvind Poddar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3479/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleassistant Commissioner Of V. Arvind Poddar Income Tax -Circle 6(1)(2) Balkrishna Industries Limited Room No. 506, 5Th Floor C-15, Trade World, Kamala Mills Compound Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400013 Mumbai, Maharashtra , 400020 Pan: Aacpp2352E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Haridas Bhat Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 148Section 69A

assessee challenged the validity of the notice under section 148 of the Act claiming that the same was issued on borrowed satisfaction and there was no independent application of mind before initiating the re-assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) Page No. 2 Arvind Poddar was convinced that the Assessing

Gagandeep Singh, Rohtak vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rohtak

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

ITA 883/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: him, therefore, proceeded to make the assessment u/s 143(3) r. w. section 147 of the Act, 1961 (‘the Act' for short). Further, he agreed that several opportunities were given by the Ld. CIT(A) as well and assessee could not represent his case due to non-receipt of the notices, however, he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without deciding the issue on merits. He prayed that this issue may be remitted back to file of Ld. CIT(A)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69

LTCG earned by the assessee. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition

Sachin Kanodia, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 42(2), New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 9504/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

suspicion" and "human probabilities" only which is never converted to reliable and trustworthy material and entire assessment order is passed on sole basis of "borrowed satisfaction" and without any independent application of mind (like a rubber stamp order). 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Jagbir Singh, Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3250/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Yr: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

Additional CIT, which fact is also mentioned in para 2 of the order of learned Pr. CIT. Hence, it is a clear case of borrowed satisfaction by the learned Pr. CIT, which is in complete violation of provisions of Section 263 of the Act. In the case before

Seema Singh, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 32(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 2777/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Seema Singh, Vs Ito, E-65, Chatterpur Extension, Near Ward-32(3), Suman Chowk, New Delhi-110074. New Delhi. Pan-Cazps4606K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pulkit Verma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 29.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

report and other alleged documentary evidence and thus we have no hesitation to hold that the Assessing Officer proceeded merely on basis of borrowed satisfaction and he had no factual information in his hand to have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. Held that the Assessing Officer ... without application of mind to the relevant material while recording reasons and forming reason to believe and thus he proceeded on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and thus he did not assure valid jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act and to issue notice

Manju Devi Shah, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1280/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.1280/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Manju Devi Shah……………..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant P-281 Scheme Vim Cit Road, Kankurgachi, Kolkata-700054. [Pan: Amkps3650G] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(4), Kolkata.......…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bibekananda Madhu, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 29, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 22, 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 12.10.2023 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 Apart From Challenging The Additions On Merits Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities Of Rs.42,12,703/- U/S 68 Of The Act By Treating The Long-Term Capital Gains Earned By The Assessee As Bogus, Has Also Challenged The Very Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment. 3. Since, The Legal Grounds Relating To The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment Hit At The Very Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer To

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

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. In view of the above observation, not only the reopening of the assessment in this case is held

Karambir, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Gurugram

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

ITA 186/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 253(5)Section 69A

same entries were taxed under section 69A and 69C of the Income Tax Act without proper examinations of the bank statement. and on the borrowed satisfaction without application of minds. 3. That no notice was served on the appellant during the pending assessment proceedings and first appellate proceedings. The appellant

Mr Manish Rajnarain Goswami, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3960/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blemanish Rajnarain Goswami V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(3) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Metropolitan Chsl Mumbai - 400020 B-6 / B-8, Nargisdas Road Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Addpg7655D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

that the conclusions of the Assessing Officer are at best the reproduction of the conclusions in the investigations report and indeed it is a “borrowed satisfaction”. 11. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd., [395 ITR 677] has held as under ... Manish Rajnarain Goswami conclusions of the AO are at best a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report. Indeed it is a 'borrowed satisfaction'. The reasons fail to demonstrate the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment

Bengal Mill Stores P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1204/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Bengal Mill Stores P. Ltd. 205, Maganlal Chamber, Dcit- Circle 6(1)(2) Baburao Bobde Marg, Iron Mumbai-400 Vs. Market Mumbai-400 009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb2473Q : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2024 19.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)(c)

learned Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 merely on the basis of change of opinion, presumption and surmises and borrowed satisfaction and recording reasons in respect of only 5 parties and therefore rendering the whole assessment bad in law. 2) In the facts and the circumstances

P and Y Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (2) 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3685/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Ito P & Y Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Ward 5 (2) 1 123, A Wing Mittal Court, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai 400021 M K Road, Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcp2579B Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri H M Bhatt, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri H M Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194ASection 68

confirming the validity of notice under Section. 148, though had been issued in absence of fresh tangible material and on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without having reason to believe of escapement of income; 2. ON facts and circumstance of the case and in law, Learned

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj, Thiruvarur

ITA 248/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.246/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.247/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.248/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dcit Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), 70/33, G.S. North Street Vs. Chennai. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepk-9399-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.14/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.246/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. Cross Objection No.15/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.247/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 6. Cross Objection No.16/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.248/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj Dcit बनाम 70/33, G.S. North Street Central Circle-2(1), / Vs. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld.Sr.AR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

based on the directions/suggestions given in the appraisal report without due application of mind as such it was nothing but a borrowed satisfaction and not that of the respective AOs. 7.The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring and not adjudicating on the ground of appeal raised before him regarding violation

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj, Thiruvarur

ITA 247/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld.Sr.AR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj, Thiruvarur

ITA 246/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld.Sr.AR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

Surinder Films(P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1360/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Surinder Films (P) Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates Vs Circle-3(1), Kolkata Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aancs0075K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. (A) For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding The Validity Of Re-Opening Proceedings U/S 147 Which Was Without Jurisdiction & As Such, Not Sustainable In The Eyes Of Law. (B) For That The Purported Approval Granted By The Principal Cit - 1, Kolkata U/S 151, If Any, Does Not Fulfill The Requirements Of Law Thereby Vitiating The Entire Proceedings. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The A.O. Of Rs. 30,00,000/- On Account Of Unsecured Loan Received From Mirabelle Tradecom Pvt Ltd. U/S 68. 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

escaped assessment. The conclusions of the AO are at best a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report. Indeed it is a 'borrowed satisfaction'. The reasons fail to demonstrate the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment