← 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

M/S Gupta Corporation Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle2(1), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 49/NAG/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 68

challenged the reopening proceedings and the assessment order. The Counsel of the appellant contented that the reopening has been made on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and no enquiry was made by the AO himself. He vehemently pleaded that the notice u/s 148 cannot be issued merely on the basis

Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 375/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 148

Income Tax Act, 1961 which was challenged before him on the reason of issuing notice u/s 148 on borrowed satisfaction of another wing of the department. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred seriously on facts in sustaining the action ... Income Tax Act, 1961 which was challenged before him on the reason of issuing notice u//s 148 on borrowed satisfaction of another wing of the department. In this ground the appellant wishes to challenge the action of the ld. AO in initiating action u/s 147, for which notice

Shri Chetas Karamshi Nandu, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward-22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhchetas Karmshi Nandu Vs. Ito 22(1)(3) B/304, Jay Apartment, Room No. 314, 3 Rd Floor, Nehru Road, Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aijpn0030C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. Prakash Kishinchandani
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer of issuing notice u/s 148 on borrowed satisfaction merely relying on the basis of alleged information received without any independent application of mind thereon. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case

Jainam Exports, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(7), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 566/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Jainam Exports, I.T.O., 201, Adinath Apartment, Jadakhadi, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Mahidharpura, Surat-395003, Surat. Gujarat. Pan No. Aadfj 1363 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

valid reasons. The Assessing Officer made reopening on the basis of third party information without recording his own satisfaction. The assessment was reopened on borrowed satisfaction. Thus, the reopening and issuance of notice under Section 148 is bad in law and the action initiated thereon is also void ab initio

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbaicircle-32(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 979/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.975 To 978 & 979 To 981/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: AnujKisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

referred supra in this order wherein held that reopening notice has to be issued by the assessing officer on his own satisfaction not on borrowed satisfaction. As per the aforesaid decision the AO is required to link the material with the reason recorded. In the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Meenakshi

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT, Circle-32(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 981/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.975 To 978 & 979 To 981/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: AnujKisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

referred supra in this order wherein held that reopening notice has to be issued by the assessing officer on his own satisfaction not on borrowed satisfaction. As per the aforesaid decision the AO is required to link the material with the reason recorded. In the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Meenakshi

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commisssioner of Income Tax, Circle-32(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 980/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.975 To 978 & 979 To 981/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: AnujKisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

referred supra in this order wherein held that reopening notice has to be issued by the assessing officer on his own satisfaction not on borrowed satisfaction. As per the aforesaid decision the AO is required to link the material with the reason recorded. In the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Meenakshi

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT, Circle-32(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 977/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.975 To 978 & 979 To 981/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: AnujKisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

referred supra in this order wherein held that reopening notice has to be issued by the assessing officer on his own satisfaction not on borrowed satisfaction. As per the aforesaid decision the AO is required to link the material with the reason recorded. In the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Meenakshi

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT, Circle-32(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 976/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.975 To 978 & 979 To 981/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: AnujKisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

referred supra in this order wherein held that reopening notice has to be issued by the assessing officer on his own satisfaction not on borrowed satisfaction. As per the aforesaid decision the AO is required to link the material with the reason recorded. In the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Meenakshi

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-32(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 975/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.975 To 978 & 979 To 981/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: AnujKisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

referred supra in this order wherein held that reopening notice has to be issued by the assessing officer on his own satisfaction not on borrowed satisfaction. As per the aforesaid decision the AO is required to link the material with the reason recorded. In the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Meenakshi

Hartron Sase Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in the manner as indicated above

ITA 1064/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

inferred that there is no independent application of mind by the Ld AO and the reasons have been recorded only on borrowed satisfaction from the documentary evidence received from the A.O. of Jain Brothers without having own reason believe as per mandate of section 147 of the Act. Furthermore ... report and other alleged documentary evidence and thus we 8 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 for AY 2009-10. Said

Gedda Appa Rao, Undi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 183/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.183/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) Gedda Appa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.2-67, Sitaram Pet Ward-1 Undi Bhimavaram [Pan : Axopg9721M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053170768(1) Dated 25.05.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 11.12.2017 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income For A.Y.2013-14. The Ao Reopened The Case U/S 147 Of The Act On The Basis Of Information With Respect To Cash Deposit In 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Income Tax (A) ought to have appreciated that the reassessment proceedings, initiated by the Assessing Officer on the basis of erroneous facts and borrowed satisfaction and without verification are invalid in law. 3. In the facts and circumstance of the case the provision of section 68 of the I.T.Act

Shark Packaging (India) Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 2163/DEL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

based an application of mind, to believe that income has escaped assessment and thus the reopening has been initiated only on the basis of borrowed satisfaction based on Investigation Wing report without evaluating, verifying and examining the said report and material before recording reasons for forming believe that income ... other authority ipso facto and for reopening the case under section 148 of the Income- tax Act 1961 because then it would amount to "borrowed satisfaction" which cannot be the basis for issue of notice u/s 148. While the need for a live link between the information received and formation

Shark Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 8310/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

based an application of mind, to believe that income has escaped assessment and thus the reopening has been initiated only on the basis of borrowed satisfaction based on Investigation Wing report without evaluating, verifying and examining the said report and material before recording reasons for forming believe that income ... other authority ipso facto and for reopening the case under section 148 of the Income- tax Act 1961 because then it would amount to "borrowed satisfaction" which cannot be the basis for issue of notice u/s 148. While the need for a live link between the information received and formation

Shark Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 8309/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

based an application of mind, to believe that income has escaped assessment and thus the reopening has been initiated only on the basis of borrowed satisfaction based on Investigation Wing report without evaluating, verifying and examining the said report and material before recording reasons for forming believe that income ... other authority ipso facto and for reopening the case under section 148 of the Income- tax Act 1961 because then it would amount to "borrowed satisfaction" which cannot be the basis for issue of notice u/s 148. While the need for a live link between the information received and formation

Gopal Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed, in terms of our observations here in above

ITA 226/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 226/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Gopal Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Village- Siltara, Near Industrial Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur, (C.G.) Growth Centre, Phase- 2, Raipur, (C.G.) Pan: Aaccg1525F (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B. Subramanyam, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10- 2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801A(4)(iv)

without any independent enquiry and application of mind. Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act has been triggered only based on borrowed satisfaction i.e., Audit Objection and not based on independent application of mind by the Ld. Pr. CIT. Therefore, the Order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT on this ... additional ground raised by the Ld. AR, it was the submission that the provisions of sections 263 has been triggered only based on the borrowed satisfaction i.e. Audit objection and not based on independent application of mind by the Ld. PCIT, therefore, the order passed by Ld. PCIT on this

DCIT, International Taxation Circle-Gurugram, Gurugram vs. Vikas Arora, Gurugram

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2335/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that reasons to believe were recorded on borrowed satisfaction ignoring the inquiry conducted by the then AO which was part of record available with Ld. CIT(A) and in turn, his decision is perverse

Parminder Singh, Jind vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bhiwani

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1411/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1411/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Parminder Singh Ito H.No.2748, Urban Estate, Vs. Ward-2, Jind, Haryana. Bhiwani. Pan No.Bckps3874B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

liable to be deleted. 9. Ld.AO & CIT(A) is erred in law by reopening the proceedings u/s 147, passed upon borrowed satisfaction from AIR Information, which is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 10. That based on the facts and circumstances of the case ... 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

A and R Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 307/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargm/S. A & R Buildmart Vs. Ito Pvt. Ltd., 11/8, Mandir Ward-1(1) Wali Gali, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi New Delhi-110 016 Pan No. Aahca 2794 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2023

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

reason to believe. The conclusion of the AO are at best a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report. Indeed it is a borrowed satisfaction. M/s. A and R Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 2 2. During the year under consideration (FY 2008-09) the company has received only

ITO, Hisar vs. Sh. Sant Singh Prop., Hisar

ITA 2547/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 143CSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 54BSection 54B(2)

office note from the Additional CIT wherein nothing adverse was noticed so requiring no action. It appears that merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction the reopening was initiated. 8. Ld. CIT(A) has also taken into consideration the fact that even there were rectification proceedings