← 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

Sh. Badaluram, Fauladpur, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Behror, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 720/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Rs.80 lakhs and simply issued the notice on the basis of information received by him. Thus the reopening of assessment is only on borrowed satisfaction and therefore reopening is bad in law as held in following cases:- Sunil Agarwal Vs. ITO ITA No.988/Del/2018 order dt.24.05.2018 (Del.) (Trib

Spectrum Foods Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

used borrowed information, but has taken action on the borrowed information without having his satisfaction after subjecting the information to verification. It is the borrowed satisfaction and not the borrowed information that has vitiated the assessment proceedings. 7 Spectrum Foods Limited vs ITO (b) The Learned Assessing Officer ... reasons makes it abundantly clear that the Learned Assessing Officer did not cause any inquiry at his end and has acted solely on the borrowed satisfaction, which is against the provisions of law. In support, the following case-law is quoted :- (1) SIGNATURE HOTELS (P) LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Dhaval Dhushant Vora, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 33(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3013/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 69

information from the Investigation Wing being not in the nature of Tangible material vitiating the assumptions of jurisdiction since it was out of borrowed satisfaction. 3. Despite on the aforesaid facts and the circumstances of the case, the Lr. C.I.T (A) has erred in confirming the addition

Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 215/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

assessee has failed to apply his independent thought and judgment before drawing such satisfaction. Further, it cannot be termed as borrowed satisfaction. The Ld. CIT-DR further submitted that the entries found in seized material were recorded and maintained by Shri. K. Srinivasulu on instructions of partners ... suspect’ rather than on ‘reasons to believe’ and the satisfaction was not based on independent application of mind but was on account of borrowed satisfaction. The same was evident from the fact that the satisfaction note drawn by AO of the assessee was an exact verbatim replica of the satisfaction

Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 214/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

assessee has failed to apply his independent thought and judgment before drawing such satisfaction. Further, it cannot be termed as borrowed satisfaction. The Ld. CIT-DR further submitted that the entries found in seized material were recorded and maintained by Shri. K. Srinivasulu on instructions of partners ... suspect’ rather than on ‘reasons to believe’ and the satisfaction was not based on independent application of mind but was on account of borrowed satisfaction. The same was evident from the fact that the satisfaction note drawn by AO of the assessee was an exact verbatim replica of the satisfaction

Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 213/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

assessee has failed to apply his independent thought and judgment before drawing such satisfaction. Further, it cannot be termed as borrowed satisfaction. The Ld. CIT-DR further submitted that the entries found in seized material were recorded and maintained by Shri. K. Srinivasulu on instructions of partners ... suspect’ rather than on ‘reasons to believe’ and the satisfaction was not based on independent application of mind but was on account of borrowed satisfaction. The same was evident from the fact that the satisfaction note drawn by AO of the assessee was an exact verbatim replica of the satisfaction

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 127/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

assessee has failed to apply his independent thought and judgment before drawing such satisfaction. Further, it cannot be termed as borrowed satisfaction. The Ld. CIT-DR further submitted that the entries found in seized material were recorded and maintained by Shri. K. Srinivasulu on instructions of partners ... suspect’ rather than on ‘reasons to believe’ and the satisfaction was not based on independent application of mind but was on account of borrowed satisfaction. The same was evident from the fact that the satisfaction note drawn by AO of the assessee was an exact verbatim replica of the satisfaction

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 126/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

assessee has failed to apply his independent thought and judgment before drawing such satisfaction. Further, it cannot be termed as borrowed satisfaction. The Ld. CIT-DR further submitted that the entries found in seized material were recorded and maintained by Shri. K. Srinivasulu on instructions of partners ... suspect’ rather than on ‘reasons to believe’ and the satisfaction was not based on independent application of mind but was on account of borrowed satisfaction. The same was evident from the fact that the satisfaction note drawn by AO of the assessee was an exact verbatim replica of the satisfaction

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 125/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

assessee has failed to apply his independent thought and judgment before drawing such satisfaction. Further, it cannot be termed as borrowed satisfaction. The Ld. CIT-DR further submitted that the entries found in seized material were recorded and maintained by Shri. K. Srinivasulu on instructions of partners ... suspect’ rather than on ‘reasons to believe’ and the satisfaction was not based on independent application of mind but was on account of borrowed satisfaction. The same was evident from the fact that the satisfaction note drawn by AO of the assessee was an exact verbatim replica of the satisfaction

Compact Texfab Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9524/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshcompact Texfab Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 1032, H. No. 66, Gali No. Ward-6(2), 33, Jafrabad, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcc3621P Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

discernible from a bare reading of the order recording reasons.” 9. The ld. AO had merely resorted to reopening the assessment based on borrowed satisfaction from investigation wing without having any independent application of mind from his side. We are in agreement with the argument of the ld. AR that

Diamondite Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD. 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1440/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1440/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Diamondite Marketing Pvt. Ltd………..…………… ........................……Appellant 2, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aacch7032G] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 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 08.11.2023 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 Assailed The Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.2,44,48,612/- U/S 68 Of The Act Treating The Same As Unaccounted Income Of The Assessee. The Assessee Has Assailed The Order On Merits As Well As On The Legal Issue Regarding The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Even the reopening of the assessment in this case has been made by the Assessing Officer in a mechanical manner on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. The Assessing Officer has neither referred to any bank account of the assessee and neither any entry of transaction etc. In view of this

Priyasha Meven Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3814/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3814/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) Priyasha Meven Finance बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(2)(1) Ltd Room No. 642/669, Vs. R 404 Rotunda Building, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Bombay Samachar Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Fort-400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp2042F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mani Jain Revenue By: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 28.08.2023 For Ay. 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Had Not Taken This Legal Issue Before The Ld. Cit(A). However, According To Him, Since It Is A Legal Issue, It Can Be Raised For The First Time Before This Tribunal & For Such A Preposition Relied Upon The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ntpc Vs. Cit (229 Itr 383) (Sc). Per Contra, The Ld. Dr Objects To Raising Of This Legal Issue Before This Tribunal For The First Time. According To Him, The Assessee Had Not Taken Up This Issue Before The Ld. Cit(A), Therefore, The Same Should Be Remanded Back To The File Of The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

income”. Further according to Ld. AR a perusal of “Reasons recorded” would show that AO re-opened the assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of SEBI (interim ex-parte order) and therefore it is bad in law; and recorded reasons suffers from non-application of mind of AO while

Reena Rakesh Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-26(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2184/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Reena Rakesh Kothari Income Tax Officer 28-A, Kamgar Nagar, Ward 26(2)(5), S.G. Barve Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Kurla (East), Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahlpk7422J Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 10Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

notice under section 148 has been issued in absence of tangible material coming into the possession of the assessee and there is a borrowed satisfaction by the learned assessing officer. It was also claim that when there is no return of income available with the assessing officer at the time

ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. M/S Tjr Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 145/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 68

exceeded her powers by rejecting the said deviation note. 32.2 The Assessing Officer acted on the dictate of a third party and on borrowed satisfaction to declare the assessee company as a shell company and made addition of all credit ITA 5 &145/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 31 entries

Decent Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kulbharat & Dr.B. R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Decent Financial Services Dcit Pvt. Ltd. A-86, Dda Shed, Vs Circle – 7 (1) Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-I, New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd2899P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: (1) On the fact and circumstances of the ease and in law, the
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

action of learned Assessing Officer without appreciate the fact that the learned assessing officer reopened the concluded assessment only on the base of borrowed satisfaction as hired from the objection of audit party. (6) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner of Income

Lgw Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-13(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 846/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 147

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

Vibrant Shelter Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 13, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 285/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

validity of the impugned reopening itself as not based on any “tangible” material and having taken recourse by the Assessing Officer by adopting “a borrowed satisfaction” only. He sought to buttress the point that the learned Assessing Officer herein had no access to the assessee’s 3 ITA.No.285/PUN./2018

New Infrastructure Private Limited, Borivali(West) vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre

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

ITA 3859/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenew Infrastructure Private Limited V. Acit- 13(1)(1) 23, B, Ganjawala Apartment 218, 2Nd Floor Svp Road, Borivali (W) Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai- 400092 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaccn1678G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha Department Represented By :

Section 143Section 148Section 234Section 271Section 68

assessment u/s 148 twice and the learned CIT(A), NFAC also erred in confirming the reopening u/s. 148 a. only on the basis of borrowed satisfaction b. relying upon information from Investigation wing c. third party statements d. overlooking earlier order passed u/s 143[3] dated 30- 3-2012 which

Bharat Vanmalibhai Modiya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Vanmalibhai Modiya, Income Tax Officer 25(2)(2), 503, Shree Krishna Bhuvan, Kautilya Bhavan, Dgit Vs. Dixit Road, Vile Parle (E), (Vigilance) (West) Avenue 3, Mumbai-400057. Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aawpm 1067 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar : Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 148

facts and circumstances in the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of the case on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. confirming reopening of the case on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. confirming reopening of the case on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. 3. On the facts

Reliable Vinimay (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 695/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 695/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Reliable Vinimay Private Limited,………..….Appellant Kaveri House, 132/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aadcr7841N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, A.R. & Shri Rajeev Kumar Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 12, 2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 148Section 68

Private Limited the above discussion, it is held that reopening of the assessment was made by the ld. Assessing Officer on the basis of borrowed satisfaction in the shape of information received by him and the said information was not enough to form the belief of escapement of income