“non-application of mind”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1472,166 judgments

The decision most relied on for non-application of mind is CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282), cited in 1,162 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on non-application of mind

CIT v. Max India Ltd.

295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court

1,162

citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

203 ITR 108 · 1993 · High Court

990

citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order under Section 263 merely because they hold a different opinion or believe a deeper inquiry was warranted if the Assessing Officer has applied their mind and conducted some inquiry. Revision under Section 263 is permissible only in cases of a complete lack of inquiry or non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, not for merely inadequate inquiry.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court

565

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Manu Engg

122 ITR 306 · 1980 · High Court

505

citing judgments

When levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. An ambiguous notice or order using "and/or" for these limbs, or a standard proforma without striking irrelevant clauses, indicates non-application of mind and renders the penalty unsustainable.

CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

392 ITR 4 · 2017 · High Court

417

citing judgments

A penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is unsustainable if it is initiated on one limb (e.g., concealment of income) but ultimately levied on the other limb (e.g., furnishing inaccurate particulars). This also applies if the initial penalty notice is vague or ambiguous regarding the specific charge.

CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd.

64 Taxmann.com 313 · 2015 · Supreme Court

340

citing judgments

A mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151, made without independent application of mind, vitiates and renders the entire reassessment proceedings invalid. Such approvals, often indicated by brief, unreasoned endorsements, lead to the quashing of the reopening of assessment.

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. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd.

149 ITR 751 · 1984 · High Court

248

citing judgments

Minor defects or mistakes in a penalty notice issued under Section 274 do not invalidate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) if the assessee suffers no prejudice and is aware of the charge. However, significant vagueness or ambiguity that demonstrates non-application of mind or causes prejudice can still render the notice invalid.

Judgments citing non-application of mind

Raja Paints India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon

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

ITA 5142/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18] Raja Paints India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Scf-18 Sector-12A, Tax, Vanijya Nikunj, Shankar Chowk Grugaon, Haryana-122016 Vs Road, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016 Pan-Aafcr2369J Assessee Revenue Assessee By Ms. Kavita Gupta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 15.01.2026

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 270A

assessee, whereas the same is net profit of the assessee. It was contended that the impugned inconsistency per se denotes a non-application of mind and a mechanical addition without any proper verification. It was further argued that no rejection of books of accounts done before the impugned disturbance which ... have carefully considered the facts of the case and found force in the arguments of the appellant assessee qua non-application of mind and a mechanical addition without any proper verification while making the Page 3 of 5 impugned addition of Rs.3,05,61,134/-. The apparent inconsistency

Subir Kumar Ghosh, New Town vs. ITO, Ward 42(1), Murshidabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2147/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2147/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Subir Kumar Ghosh, Vs Ito Ward-42(1), Murshidabad Flat No.G-303, Block-G, Rail Vihar, New Town, Action Area 1A, Rajarhat North 24 Parganas, Wb-700163 Pan No. :Adlpg 1306 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Thard, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Thard, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151

which is by the Ld.JCIT, Range-40, Kolkata. It was the submission that the reason recorded are on wrong presumptions and non-application of mind. It was submission that the said reasons are liable to be quashed. 6. In reply, the Ld.Sr. DR submitted that the assessment orders says ... even the approval has been given by the JCIT on such reasons will also make the approval questionable insofar as there is clear non-application of mind much less consideration of the facts. The fact that the AO has also mentioned in the assessment order that the reasons recorded have

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6016/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Overseas P Ltd. 395 ITR 677, which is found to be applicable as the reasons recorded is found to be a product of non-application of mind, very basis of reopening is found to be vague and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. We have further considered ... same, are found to be a product of rubber stamp on the report by the Investigation Wing which is sufficient enough to prove non-application of mind on the part of the Ld. AO. On this count it is a clear fact of reasons having been recorded on presumptive basis

Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Faridkot vs. DCIT, Centre Circle-2, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 49/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

held that approval granted in a mechanical manner without application of mind renders the assessment order invalid. Once the statutory approval suffers from non-application of mind, the consequential assessment cannot survive in the eyes of law. On these facts, the assessment order was held to be without jurisdiction

Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Village Mansoorwal, Tehsil Zira Head Office, Old Cantt Road, Faridkot vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 48/CHANDI/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Tehsil Zira, Faridkot -151203, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 463/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Quila Chowk

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 193/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

Espee Pharma Chem Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1774/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2019-20

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 69C

passing a summary order dated 17-09-2025 without giving any reason and passing cryptic order and therefore, the order passed is non-application of mind and liable to be quashed. 7. In confirming / making the impugned addition on account of alleged so-called bogus purchase

Abhishek Jayketu Joshi, Mumbai vs. Ac Cir-42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5775/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarabhishek Jayketu Joshi Ac Cir-42(2)(1), C-73, Venus Society, R. G. Kautilya Bhavan, Thadani Marg, Worli Sea Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Face, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Ackpj8583H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M. M. Golvala, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

notice under section 148A(b). It was contended that issuance of a jurisdictional notice on incorrect identification of the donee entity reflects non-application of mind and renders the entire proceedings unsustainable in law. 9 Abhishek Jayketu Joshi 15. The learned Authorised Representative further pointed out inherent contradictions ... participated in the Bihar Legislative Assembly elections. According to the learned Authorised Representative, such mutually inconsistent observations in the same order demonstrate complete non-application of mind and undermine the credibility of the conclusions drawn by the Assessing Officer. 16. The learned Authorised Representative further contended that the Assessing Officer

Jayco Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/DEL/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarjayco Promoters & Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd, Ward-13(3), C-5, Madhu Vihar, Patparganj, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcj7631E

For Appellant: Shri Vibhu Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Question No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff Case (supra) on the issue of non-application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ? 187 In Dilip N. Shroff case (supra), for the Supreme Court ... Constitution. 191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff Case (supra) treats omnibus show- cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice

Anirudh Bhimjibhai Dudhat, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 42(1)(1), Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 7346/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makrand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

addition of ₹38,67,500/- originally made by the 4 Anirudh Bhimjibhai Dudhat, Mumbai. Assessing Officer. This arithmetical incongruity itself reflects a palpable non-application of mind. 7. It is well settled that once additional evidences are admitted, the appellate authority is duty-bound to examine the same on merits

White Orchid Hospitality (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5130/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year : 2021-22 White Orchid Hospitality (P) Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 306, Suneja Tower Ii, Central Circle-29, Distt. Centre, Janakpuri, Delhi. Desu Colony So, West Delhi, New Delhi– 110 058. Pan: Aaccw1923F

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Amisha S. Gupt, CIT- DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 69

combined 3 satisfaction note without identifying as to how the material relied therein pertained to all the AYs, demonstrates mechanical satisfaction with complete non-application of mind as a borrowed context and therefore, must be quashed. 4. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment

Income Tax Officer, Ranchi, Jharkhand vs. Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi, Jharkhand

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 61/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.61/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito, Ranchi………..…………….…….…...................................……….……Appellant Vs. Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd ……....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 21, Ashok Bhawan, Kali Asthan Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand. [Pan: Aadca7460J] Appearances By: Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 15.01.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act & Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Special Smokeless Coal/Coke. The Assessee Also Derives Income By Way Of Interest On Bank Deposits. As Per Information Available With The Income-Tax Department, It Was Noticed That The Assessee’S Bank Accounts Reflected Substantial Cash Deposits, Which Were Allegedly Withdrawn Immediately Through Rtgs/Neft Transactions. It Was Further Observed That There Existed A Difference Between The Turnover Disclosed By The Assessee In The Return Of Income & The Total Credits Appearing In The Bank Accounts. On The Basis Of The Above Information, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Initiated Reassessment Proceedings By Issuing A Notice Under Section 148 Of The

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 273B

onwards of the appellate order and held that the initiation of a second reassessment proceeding without concluding the first one clearly demonstrates non-application of mind. The reassessment order was passed without issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act in the relevant proceedings. Participation of the assessee

Gujarat Tea Processors & Packers Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1133/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 263Section 37Section 80G

Source was not claimed as an expense by the Appellant, and therefore, any disallowance in this regard is not warranted, thereby, demonstrating non-application of mind and vitiating the very basis of jurisdiction assumed under section 263 of the Act. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

Rashi Peripherals Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3671/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80J

prejudicial to the interest of Revenue". In our impugned case, the order of Ld.AO is "erroneous" in the sense that there is non-application of mind because there is delay in filing Form 10DA, which was seen by CPC, but not by AO. But, this "error" did not cause "prejudice

Jigna Ashutosh Bhatt, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 33(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on merits

ITA 3639/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarito Ward-32(2)(1) Jigna Ashutosh Bhatt Kautilya Bhavan, I-1434, Govardhan Nagar Bandra Kurla Bldg. No. 4, Opp. Poinsur Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Gymkhana, Kandivali Mumbai-400 051 (West), Mumbai-400 067 Pan/Gir No. Aiypb4411G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan L. Vajani, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.01.2026

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Jigna Ashok Bhatt”, whereas the correct name of the assessee is “Jigna Ashutosh Bhatt”. It was submitted that this discrepancy itself reflects non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer while recording reasons for reopening the assessment. 12. Lastly, the learned AR controverted the observation

Maharshi Karve Stree Shikshan Sansthas Employees Coop Society Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Easssessment Center, Delhi

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

ITA 668/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anand KhandewaleFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

where the assessee's income was accepted without any addition and there was no change in facts or claims. Ground 2: Non-Application of Mind on Merits. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering the legal merits of the case and made a decision without a proper application of mind

Suyambu, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncc-1, Madurai

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

ITA 3750/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. Sshri Suyambu, 56A, West Perumal Maistry Street, Madurai-625 001. [Pan: Axaps 6998 J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement V. The Ito, Non Corporate Circle-1, Madurai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Ms. Vaibhavi S.U., Advocate : Ms. Babitha, Jcit : 12.12.2025 : 02.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: Stay Petition No.123/Chny/2025 &

Section 148Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Ajaykumar Natwarlal Sheth, Rajkot vs. The DCIT, Circle 1(2) Rajkot, Rajkot

ITA 108/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT “SMC” BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL

Kanhaiya Lal Hari Narayan, Neem Ka Thana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Neem Ka Thana, Neem Ka Thana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 1034/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 144Section 147Section 250

jurisdiction to reopen the case of the assessee for the impugned order i.e. AY 2013-14. He further contended that there was complete non-application of mind by the AO to the information in his possession and the jurisdiction assumed by the AO to reopen the case of the assessee