← All Phrases

“non-application of mind”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1472,166 judgments

HIMANSHU DAKSHESHKUMAR KATWALA,KHAMBHAT ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/AHD/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hardik J Raval & Vivek D Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

adding their value as income, which is contrary to settled principles of taxation and accounting. 10. The entire addition is based on non-application of mind and incorrect understanding of law and therefore deserves to be deleted. 11. The burden of proving unexplained income lies upon the Revenue, which ... entries, without specifying whether such entries pertain to unsecured loans, share capital, bogus gains or any other category of income. This clearly demonstrates non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. 11. Further, we observe that the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any specific details

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6271/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlate Gyan Prakash Gupta Vs. Ito Through Legal Heir Raj Ward 10(4) Kumari Gupta New Delhi Plot No.6 & 7, Defence Enclave, Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adupg 2697 N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

only: 5.1 As with regard to this issue we are of the considered view that there is no ambiguity which established the non-application of mind by the lower authorities and vitiates the additions made. Mentioning a wrong section by the AO is not fatal, in a case where income

CHINTANBHAI LAVJIBHAI DANKHARA,SURAT vs. ITO, SURAT

ITA 769/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 44Section 69

thereby failing to discharge the quasi-judicial duty to examine the correctness of the assessment order. The impugned order is vitiated due to non-application of mind and absence of reasoned findings on the substantive issue, rendering it unsustainable in law. (3) The learned Assessing Officer erred

INDU GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT-CC1-6, DELHI

In the result, the appeal relating to assessment year 2015-16 filed by the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 6660/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar & Indu Gupta, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-16, 1576, Nai Basti, Jhandewalan Extn., S.P. Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi – 55 Delhi – 110009 (Pan : Abspg2526N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca & Shri Mirza Muhiuddin Baig, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 Date Of Order : 20.03.2026 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman, Am: 1. These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Respective Orders Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-26, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] For Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18 Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Inter-Connected, Hence, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience, By Dealing With The Facts Of Assessment Year 2015-16, Being The Lead Case. 2. During The Hearing, Ld. Ar Has Submitted That A Search & Seizure Action Was Conducted In The Case Of Rakesh Jain Group On 2.11.2017 Wherein M/S

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Gupta, CA and Shri MirzaFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

approve that each of assessment year is complied with as well as procedural laid down under the Act. Such fact clearly reveals non-application of mind on the part of the Learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-7, New Delhi. Thus granting approval for all the common years

MRS INDU GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT-CC-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal relating to assessment year 2015-16 filed by the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 6659/DEL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar & Indu Gupta, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-16, 1576, Nai Basti, Jhandewalan Extn., S.P. Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi – 55 Delhi – 110009 (Pan : Abspg2526N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca & Shri Mirza Muhiuddin Baig, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 Date Of Order : 20.03.2026 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman, Am: 1. These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Respective Orders Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-26, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] For Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18 Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Inter-Connected, Hence, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience, By Dealing With The Facts Of Assessment Year 2015-16, Being The Lead Case. 2. During The Hearing, Ld. Ar Has Submitted That A Search & Seizure Action Was Conducted In The Case Of Rakesh Jain Group On 2.11.2017 Wherein M/S

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Gupta, CA and Shri MirzaFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

approve that each of assessment year is complied with as well as procedural laid down under the Act. Such fact clearly reveals non-application of mind on the part of the Learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-7, New Delhi. Thus granting approval for all the common years

SWIFT IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4924/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 153CSection 153DSection 3

rendering the assessment order bad in law. 5. That on the facts and in law, the approval u/s. 153D stands vitiated due to non-application of mind, as both the proposal and the approval are mere carbon copies across years and group entities, issued in the fag end, in breach ... statutory mandate.” 3. During the hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that approval u/s. 153D stands vitiated due to non-application of mind, as both the proposal and the approval are mere carbon copies across years and group entities, issued in the fag end, in breach of the statutory mandate

SWIFT IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 4923/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 153CSection 153D

mind,\nrendering the assessment order bad in law.\n5. That on the facts and in law, the approval u/s.153D stands vitiated\ndue to non-application of mind, as both the proposal and the approval\nare mere carbon copies across years and group entities, issued in the\nfag end, in breach ... statutory mandate.\"\n\n3. During the hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that approval u/s.153D stands\nvitiated due to non-application of mind, as both the proposal and the approval\nare mere carbon copies across years and group entities, issued in the fag end,\nin breach of the statutory mandate

SWIFT IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4922/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 153CSection 153DSection 3

rendering the assessment order bad in law. 5. That on the facts and in law, the approval u/s. 153D stands vitiated due to non-application of mind, as both the proposal and the approval are mere carbon copies across years and group entities, issued in the fag end, in breach ... statutory mandate.” 3. During the hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that approval u/s. 153D stands vitiated due to non-application of mind, as both the proposal and the approval are mere carbon copies across years and group entities, issued in the fag end, in breach of the statutory mandate

SWIFT IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4921/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 153D

mind,\nrendering the assessment order bad in law.\n5. That on the facts and in law, the approval u/s.153D stands vitiated\ndue to non-application of mind, as both the proposal and the approval\nare mere carbon copies across years and group entities, issued in the\nfag end, in breach ... statutory mandate.\"\n3.\nDuring the hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that approval u/s.153D stands\nvitiated due to non-application of mind, as both the proposal and the approval\nare mere carbon copies across years and group entities, issued in the fag end,\nin breach of the statutory mandate. To support

SWIFT IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4920/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 153CSection 153D

mind,\nrendering the assessment order bad in law.\n5. That on the facts and in law, the approval u/s.153D stands vitiated\ndue to non-application of mind, as both the proposal and the approval\nare mere carbon copies across years and group entities, issued in the\nfag end, in breach ... statutory mandate.\"\n\n3. During the hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that approval u/s.153D stands\nvitiated due to non-application of mind, as both the proposal and the approval\nare mere carbon copies across years and group entities, issued in the fag end,\nin breach of the statutory mandate

SWIFT IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4919/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 153CSection 153DSection 3

rendering the assessment order bad in law. 5. That on the facts and in law, the approval u/s. 153D stands vitiated due to non-application of mind, as both the proposal and the approval are mere carbon copies across years and group entities, issued in the fag end, in breach ... statutory mandate.” 3. During the hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that approval u/s. 153D stands vitiated due to non-application of mind, as both the proposal and the approval are mere carbon copies across years and group entities, issued in the fag end, in breach of the statutory mandate

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8069/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 132ASection 153DSection 28

specific format or language. The appellant has failed to substantiate its claim of mechanical approval. No evidence was provided to demonstrate non-application of mind by the JCIT. The approval under section 153D was validly granted. This ground is dismissed.” 7. Ld. Sr. Counsel has submitted that the approval

MANOJ KUMAR SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT(A) CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6383/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 132ASection 153DSection 28

specific format or language. The appellant has failed to substantiate its claim of mechanical approval. No evidence was provided to demonstrate non-application of mind by the JCIT. The approval under section 153D was validly granted. This ground is dismissed.” 7. Ld. Sr. Counsel has submitted that the approval

VEERA REDDY POSHAM,NALGONDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1830/Hyd

ITA 1830/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.Nos.1829 & 1830/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2020-2021 & 2022-2023 Veera Reddy Posham, The Acit, Nalgonda – 508 246 Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Telangana. Hyderabad. Telangana. Pan Aijpp0376P (Applicant) (Respondent) -None- िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234FSection 250(6)Section 270ASection 80CSection 80C(2)(xvii)

addition based solely on presumption and inference, without corroborative evidence, is contrary to settled law 11 ITA.Nos.1829 & 1830/Hyd./2025 E. Ground on Non-application of Mind by CIT(A)  The CIT(A) mechanically upheld the assessment order without independent appreciation of facts or examination of documentary evidences.  The appellate

VEERA REDDY POSHAM,NALGONDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1830/Hyd

ITA 1829/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 80CSection 80C(2)(xvii)

addition based solely on presumption and inference,\nwithout corroborative evidence, is contrary to settled law.\nITA. Nos.1829 & 1830/Hyd./2025\n11\nE. Ground on Non-application of Mind by CIT(A)\n•\nThe CIT(A) mechanically upheld the assessment order\nwithout independent appreciation of facts or examination of\ndocumentary evidences

GRANULES INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1289/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1289/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Granules India Limited Vs. Dcit- Circle -2(1) 15Th Floor, Granules Tower Signature Tower, Botanical Garden Road Sy. No. 6(P) Of Kondaput Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084 Sy. No. 37 Of Kothaguda Telangana Opp. Botanical Gardens Serilingampalluy, R.R. District Pan: Aaacg7369K Hyderabad-500084, Telangana (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

fresh information available with the Assessing officer. Once the assessment has been reopened on RAP objection, then it is a case of non-application of mind to relevant materials and formation of belief of escapement of assessment, but purely on borrowed satisfaction which is not permissible under law. In this

DAZZLER CONFECTIONERY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8411/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Sarda, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR AR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clause would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and levy of penalty would suffers from non-application of mind. 16. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

BHAGERIA FINANCE & INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 8807/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklabhageria Finance & Investment Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-4(1), G-324, Gali No.6, Shiv Mandir Vs. Delhi. Road, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi-110042. Pan-Aaacb4130F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

case of the assessee that approval under Section 151 of the Act shows certain inconsistencies indicating non-application of mind by both the authorities below. According to the assessee the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. Explanation -2(b) to section

DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDRABAD vs. KALPTARU INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1077/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 147

mind and factually incorrect. The\nlearned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has\nsubmitted that the reason recorded by the Assessing Officer\nshows non-application of mind without conducting any\nindependent enquiry or satisfaction of the Assessing Officer\nand therefore, the reopening based on borrowed satisfaction\nis not sustainable ... derivative\ntransactions in the currencies as the illiquid stock option is\napparently based on incorrect and non-existing facts. It also\nreveals non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing\nOfficer while issuing the notice u/sec.148 of the act as the\nreasons recorded by the Assessing Officer

HYDERABAD SCIENCE SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1128/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1128/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Hyderabad Science Society, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Vs. Pin - 500 028. Exemption Circle-1(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aaath3789F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca For Revenue : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)

provision of Section 12A r.w.s. 12AA and 12AB(4) of the Act is found to be erroneous, bad in law, whimsical, in non-application of mind and thus, unsustainable.” 6.5. Thus, it is held in the above cited Judgment of Hon’ble High Court and Orders of the Tribunal that

Showing 1–20 of 2,166 · Page 1 of 109

...