“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

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

materials placed for his consideration which enabled him to form such a belief. 27. The contention that this is a case of borrowed satisfaction also cannot be accepted. The Assessing Officer had perused the materials and analysed the same so as to come to the conclusion that prima facie

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 267/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

Sanjay Hirachand Chokad, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1801/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 292B

raised in this regard by the appellant u/s 292BB and therefore rendering the whole re assessment bad in law, also on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, presumption and surmises. 2 ITA No.1801/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 Sanjay Hirachand Chokad Vs. ITO, Ward 32(3)(3) 2. In the facts and circumstances

ACIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ms Jayanti K Punjabi, Mumbai

ITA 463/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty, D.R

Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 292

within two days. 12A. So it has come on record that the AO has initiated the reopening on the basis of borrowed satisfaction but has not applied his own mind. This fact is also apparent from the “reasons recorded” wherein part information is qua cash sales of property on 10th ... settled position in law that re- opening notice has to be issued by the Assessing Office on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction.” 15. The Hon’ble High Court held that “when the AO has merely issued reassessment notice on the basis of intimation regarding reopening notice from

M/S. Translands Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1676/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1676/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Translands Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit-15(3)(1) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Room No.451, Aayakar Vs. Office No. A-702, 7Th Floor, Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Everest Nivara Infotech Park, Mumbai-400020. Plot No.D/3, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct0036B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. P. Bairagra Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act. A.Y.2012-13 2. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reassessment U/S 147 Which Was Reopened By Ao On The Basis Of Borrowed Satisfaction I.E. Merely On The Basis Of Information Received In Letter From Dy. Dit (Inv.) In Respect Of Search & Seizure U/S 132 Of The Act In The Case Of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt Without Application Of His Own Mind Before Issue Of Notice U/S 148. 3. The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reassessment U/S 147 Reopened By Ao Without Taking The Requisite Approval From The Principal Commissioner U/S 151(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Recording The Satisfaction That It Is A Fit Case For Reopening On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded By The Ld Ao As No Exact Copy Of The Said Approval Has Been Given To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri J. P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

Income Tax Act. A.Y.2012-13 2. Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the reassessment u/s 147 which was reopened by AO on the basis of borrowed satisfaction i.e. merely on the basis of information received in letter from Dy. DIT (Inv.) in respect of search and seizure

Ultra Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8908/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Ultra Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-2, Top Floor, Suneja Chamber, Circle-27(1), Alaknanda Commercial Complex, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacu0117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Verma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th September, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2011 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.3,06,078/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 10.01.2018 At The Returned Income. Subsequently, On The Basis Of Information Received From The Dcit, Central Circle (2), Mumbai Dated 5Th February, 2016 Wherein It Was Informed That Shri Shirish C. Shah, Who Happened To Be The Main Person Engaged In Providing Bogus Accommodation Entries Through The Companies Directly/Indirectly Controlled By Him & The Assessee Company Has Received Accommodation Entry Of Rs.25 Lakhs From M/S Dhanus Technologies Ltd., The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Recording Reasons And, Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Verma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

deleted. So far as the validity of reassessment proceedings are concerned, he submitted that the same has been reopened on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and not on the basis of independent application of mind by the AO. He, however, submitted that he has no objection if the matter

Priya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

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

ITA 7303/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr.D.R

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

submitted that the A.O. in the instant case without independent application of mind of his own and in a mechanical manner and on borrowed satisfaction has reopened the assessment on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing. Therefore, the same being not in accordance with ... reopened the assessment in a 14 ITA.No.7303/Del./2017 M/s. Priya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. mechanical manner without independent application of mind and on borrowed satisfaction, such reopening of the assessment is invalid. 4.2. Referring to the approval granted by the Addl. CIT, he submitted that he has simply granted

Raghav Softech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

facts on account of following parameters: - Notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law as the same has been A. issued based upon borrowed satisfaction; - The Ld. Assessing Officer has relied upon documents B. which do not constitute admissible evidences; The Ld. Assessing Officer has relied upon information C. collected ... duly reflected in the audited books of accounts thus provisions of Section 69 are not applicable. A notice has been issued purely on borrowed satisfaction; 2. A perusal of the reasons recorded clearly reveals that the notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law and contrary to the facts

Zanul Abiden Vahora, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 15 (1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1365/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar ()And Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Zanul Abiden Vahora, Ito, Wd-25(1)(5), Flat No. 7, Plot No. 156, Chandrakiran Vs. Room No. 611, C-12, Pratyaksh Society, Behind Tolani College, Shere Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Punjab Society, Andheri (East), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Ahtpv 0978 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s 148 issued in absence of fresh tangible material, without independent application of mind on borrowed satisfaction and without having valid reason to believe of escapement of income; 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld. CIT(A) erred

Inderjeet Kohli, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-38(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6963/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi

Section 147Section 148Section 22

satisfaction only on the basis of the information received from the Investigating wing without any enquiries and hence, he assumed jurisdiction only on the borrowed satisfaction, which is impermissible in law. He submitted that it is a settled law that reopening cannot be initiated on the basis of borrowed satisfaction

Krishna Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 38(3), New Delhi

ITA 6356/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that “rubber stamp” reasons in present case are based on borrowed satisfaction and are without independent application of mind This is further evident from following features of reasons recorded: 2 Krishan Devi i) That in reasons ... 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 5 Krishan Devi without any independent application of mind (like a rubber stamp order). 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

Abhinav Agarwal HUF, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3641/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3640/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Abhinav Agarwal, Vs Dcit, C/O Kapil Goel, Adv. Circle-1, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Meerut New Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afzpa5664E

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 68

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). 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Abhinav Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3640/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 68

Morgan Ventures Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8238/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiyaita No. 8238/Del/2019 [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151

basis of audit objection and in absence of independent application of mind or investigation, the reopening u/s 148 is on mechanical basis and borrowed satisfaction. (iii) That the original assessment having been completed u/s 143(3] of the Act, after due verification of return of income, the notice

Vijayshree Food Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 587/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Vijayshree Food Products P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O Ravi Gupta, Advocate, Central Circle-30, E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv4721C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th December, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Export Of Tobacco Products. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014 Declaring The Loss Of Rs.18,78,467/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 26Th November, 2014 At The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment As Per The Provisions Of Section 147 Of The Act By Recording The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

escaped assessment. Referring to the reasons recorded, he submitted that the AO has solely relied on stale information and hence it is case of borrowed satisfaction. Otherwise the AO would not have made incorrect observations and relied on the past events to assume the sanctity of future transactions

Seema Singhal, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward- 3(5), Hapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2441/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Seema Singhal, Hapur Vs. Ito C/O. Pradeep & Co., Ward – 3(5) 7, Navyug Market, Hapur Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 001 Pan : Awpps 0757 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

recorded are solely on the basis of AIR information which cannot be considered as tangible material, the reasons recorded u/s 147 are based on borrowed satisfaction and are illegal and not sustainable under the law. (iii) That assessing officer having failed to verify or even acknowledge the original return

Himanshu Technologies Solutions P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 7905/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Legal ground numbered as ground no 3 3. That the reasons have been recorded on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and there is no live link or nexus between the information so received and formation of belief by the Assessing Officer for escapement of income. New Legal ground numbered

Sastvijay Investment & Consultancy Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(4), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reasons to be believed must demonstrate the link between the tangible material and the formation of the belief and it should not be a 'borrowed satisfaction'. 6.1 The facts in the case of appellant are similar to aforesaid cases. Here also, information was received by AO from Investigation Wing ... enquiry by issuing statutory notices in the aforesaid sections. In such situation, the allegation of the appellant that the satisfaction recorded by AO was 'borrowed satisfaction' on the basis of borrowed information from Investigation Wing, therefore, reopening of assessment is not valid, is not acceptable. From the reasons recorded

DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi vs. Modtech Industries, New Delhi

In the result, since the assessment order is set aside on legal issue, therefore, there is no need to decide the additions on merits which are left with academic discussion only

ITA 8783/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 50B

circumstances of the case and in law the impugned order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without providing the reason to appellant which leads to satisfaction of the learned Assessing Officer that too without taking prior approval u/s 153D

Modtech Industries, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, since the assessment order is set aside on legal issue, therefore, there is no need to decide the additions on merits which are left with academic discussion only

ITA 8045/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 50B