“borrowed satisfaction”

J.D. Sons Steel Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

share capital or any bogus entry by any entry provider. The reasons recorded itself goes to show that it is purely based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind and such an approach has been frowned by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of PCIT

Shri Anil Nanda, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Anil Nanda, Vs Dcit, 12-C, Friends Colony, Circle-68(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aafpn4381A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St March, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-32, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th July, 2007 Declaring Total Income At Rs.8,25,64,675/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30Th October, 2009 Accepting The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The It Act, 1961 After Recording The Following Reasons:-

inter-corporate deposit and, hence, section 2(22)(e) was attracted. g) The satisfaction of the AO is not his satisfaction, but, borrowed satisfaction. h) Further, it is a case of reason to suspect and not reason to believe. 5. However, the AO rejected all the objections raised ... truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. 5.6.7 The AR of the appellant has contended that the satisfaction of the AO was borrowed satisfaction, as he had not verified the information from the records of either of the companies. He has also relied upon judicial decisions in support

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

learned counsel for the assessee in his another plank of argument submitted that the reassessment proceedings in the instant case is based on borrowed satisfaction based on the conclusion drawn by Investigation tax possible escapement of income. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court ... 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'. believe that income has escaped assessment. 37. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case

Lakhmi Chand Tejoo Mal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12]

reasons were, in fact, in the form of conclusions "one after the other" and that the satisfaction arrived at by the AO was a "borrowed satisfaction" and at best "a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report." 13. As in the above case, even in the present case

Brace Iron & Steel P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Ld.CIT(A) has neither rebutted and/or questioned the genuineness/ authenticity of the documentation/evidences available on record, but has merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, arrived at the impugned findings purely on surmises, conjectures and some fundamentally incorrect factual assumptions. 10. That therefore, as the order

Sh. Jeet Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

from the Investigation wing only without application of mind and analysing the basic facts of the case. The notice issued on the basis of borrowed satisfaction is illegal and void and consequently assessment based on such notice may kindly be quashed. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case ... other grounds challenging the addition on merits and the additional grounds challenging validity of the re- assessment proceedings on account of mechanical approval, borrowed satisfaction etc., become academic in nature and, therefore, are not being adjudicated. 8. In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed. Order pronounced in the open

Duggal & Sons Buildwell (P) Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Faridabad

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiyaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

involved in the present appeal. Firstly, that of non-disposal of objections by separate speaking order, secondly, that of reasons recorded solely based on borrowed satisfaction and thirdly, that of approval of higher authority is arbitrarily and mechanically given. The Ld. AR submitted that these three jurisdictional aspects are fully

Duggal Estates Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Faridabad

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiyaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

involved in the present appeal. Firstly, that of non-disposal of objections by separate speaking order, secondly, that of reasons recorded solely based on borrowed satisfaction and thirdly, that of approval of higher authority is arbitrarily and mechanically given. The Ld. AR submitted that these three jurisdictional aspects are fully

M/S vs. R Enterprises, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2007-08

there is no independent application of mind to the vague material for reopening of a matter and clearly a case of borrowed satisfaction, which is bad in law. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case the assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law as there

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. K.S. Chawla & Songs (HUF), New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

also submitted that reopening of a case u/s 148 is not permissible on borrowed satisfaction of another officer. The pre- requisite condition required for the Assessing Officer is to give his own findings for reopening the case in hand and not to rely upon the findings given by any other ... present case. The reopening of a case u/s 148 is not permissible on borrowed satisfaction of another officer. The pre-requisite condition required for the Assessing Officer is to give his own findings for reopening the case in hand and not to rely upon the findings given by any other

Rajesh Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 31(4), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12 Rajesh Gupta Huf, Vs. Ito, C/O-Raj Kumar & Associates, Ward-31(4), Chartered Accountants, R. No.1209, Civic Centre, L-7A (Lgf), South Extension New Delhi-110002 Part-Ii, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaghr9262M

following grounds of appeal 1. That under the facts and circumstances, proceedings U/s 147/148 are without jurisdiction, without application of mind, unwarranted, mechanical, on borrowed satisfaction and on the basis of wrongly taken facts, hence unsustainable in law as well as on merits. 2. That under the facts and circumstances ... accordingly submitted that the Assessing Officer without verifying the return of income filed by the assessee and in a mechanical manner and under borrowed satisfaction has reopened the 6 assessment which is not valid in law. He submitted that when the reopening is based on wrong appreciation of facts, such

Garg Zevar Palace Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 9542/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Garg Zevar Palace Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer(E), C/O Kapil Goel, Adv., Ward-1(3), F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Faridabad, Haryana New Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccg0565H Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.03.2021

147/143(3) without appreciating that “rubber stamp” reasons in present case (page 1 & 2 of assessment order) are based on borrowed satisfaction and are without independent application of mind as in reasons recorded a) firstly it is wrongly and incorrectly stated that first time assessment is proposed to be made

Balbir Investment Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10

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 and even no requisite and appropriate enquiry is made into valid return filed by assessee before formulating ... basis of information obtained from the Investigation Wing and without due application of mind by the Assessing Officer and such reopening was on borrowed satisfaction. It has been held in various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal that reopening of assessment

Raman Sood, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-28(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

failed to appreciate the fact that the reasons for reopening of assessment by the ld. AO are based on the borrowed satisfaction and that there is no application of independent mind by the PCIT in granting approval for reopening. (c) That the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact

Space Chem Engineers Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2008-09

notice u/s 147, AO is discharge his official duty by taking action u/s 147, and hence wrongly justified issuance of notice admittedly on borrowed satisfaction. 5. Because, Id. CIT (A) erred in justifying non-supply of underlying material/statement etc. with opportunity to cross despite specific request. 6. Because, without prejudice ... following decisions, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that when the reopening of the assessment has been made on the basis of borrowed satisfaction from the investigation wing and the AO has not applied his mind, such notice issued u/s 148 is invalid and the subsequent proceedings also become infructous