← All Phrases

“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

J. M. Housing Limited, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central) Knp Meerut, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8248/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] J.M. Housing Limited, Pr.Cit (Central) Kanpur, At Meerut, 312/3T/F5 Pratap Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Bhahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Vs Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-25001 Central Delhi, Delhi-11002 Pan-Aaccj1692E Assessee Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 68

dated 27.03.2025 was passed, which is as under:- ‘…6. In light of discussion in para above it is clear that there is non-application of mind on the part of Assessing Officer in as much as the necessary verification of facts/enquiries which should have been made, have not been made ... were required to be made is one of both. xxxxxxxxx 8. In view of the discussions above, it is clear that there is non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer in as much as the necessary verification of facts/enquiries which should have been made, have

New Track Exim Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 18(3), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2765/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

assessment order). It may be noted that assuming jurisdiction before allowing the appellant to file objections to assumption of jurisdiction is nothing but non-application of mind by the Ld. AO to the legal requirements of the Law. The issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act before

Aggarwal Agro Industries, Karnal vs. ITO-Ward-1, Karnal

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

ITA 2544/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manav Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69C

same. 4. That without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, re- assessment proceedings have been initiated on mere suspicion, conjectures and surmises, demonstrating non-application of mind and the re-assessment order thus framed by the Ld. A.O for the AY 2013-14 is wholly illegal and deserves

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

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

ITA 344/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

reasons recorded that the issue under consideration was never examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of regular assessment and tantamount to non-application of mind; (c) that the re-assessment is based solely on borrowed 5 satisfaction solely based on information of Investigation Wing without any independent verification ... passed against the assessee u/s. 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act, which goes to eradicate the adverse view taken on this basis and establish non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer; (e) that the approval accorded under section 151 of the Act by the sanctioning authority was perfunctory, cryptic

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

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

ITA 343/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

reasons recorded that the issue under consideration was never examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of regular assessment and tantamount to non-application of mind; (c) that the re-assessment is based solely on borrowed 5 satisfaction solely based on information of Investigation Wing without any independent verification ... passed against the assessee u/s. 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act, which goes to eradicate the adverse view taken on this basis and establish non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer; (e) that the approval accorded under section 151 of the Act by the sanctioning authority was perfunctory, cryptic

Nilons Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Jcti Range 2, Pune

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

ITA 1267/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Smt. N. C. Shilpa
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271E

Gujarat), another Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court rejected the Revenue's argument based on lack of inter-departmental coordination or non-application of mind when materials relating to amalgamation were already available with the department. The Court held that based upon such grounds, notices could not have been

Shri. Krishna Enterprisis, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 524/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

Commissioner of Income Tax to 78 matters by one letter. He submits that the common sanction is invalid and therefore there is a non-application of mind. He further relied upon the decision of the coordinate bench in case of RoshaAlloys Private Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income

Shri. Krishna Enterprises, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 522/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

Commissioner of Income Tax to 78 matters by one letter. He submits that the common sanction is invalid and therefore there is a non-application of mind. He further relied upon the decision of the coordinate bench in case of RoshaAlloys Private Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Patil Construction and Infrastucture Limited., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5908/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akash Kumar (vritually appear), CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 80I

Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited Ld. CIT(A) is a non-speaking one and displays blatant non-application of mind and he has not discussed the nature of projects executed in various years which are different from the projects for which the Settlement Commission has allowed the claim of deduction

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akash Kumar (vritually appear), CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 80I

Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited Ld. CIT(A) is a non-speaking one and displays blatant non-application of mind and he has not discussed the nature of projects executed in various years which are different from the projects for which the Settlement Commission has allowed the claim of deduction

Khazana Stores Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1506/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 1506/Ahd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Khazana Stores Pvt. Ltd. The Ito Gf 2 Commerce House 2 बनाम/ Ward 2(1)(1) Judges Bunglow Road, V/S. Ahmedabad 380 015 Bodakdev, Ahmedabad 380 054 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaack 7880 R (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars Revenue By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 23/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As 'Cit(A)'] Dated 07/07/2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia &For Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

authorities but thereby passing a non-speaking order in a cryptic manner, just referring to the assessment order only. Thus, there was total non-application of mind on part of CIT(A) in disposing of the appeal so that the same should be quashed ... assessee would not ipso facto can be presumed to be unexplained income of the assessee. This case is apparently a case of non-application of mind and there was no valid reason for the AO to form the belief that the income of the assessee for the year under consideration

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Siddheshwari Vyapaar Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2280/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2280/Kol/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2012-2013) Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Vs Siddheshwarivyapaar Pvt Ltd Kolkata 2Nd Floor, 159, Ravindra Sarani Kolkata-700007 Pan No. :Aancs 2337 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Cit-Dr निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shrisoumitra Choudhury & Rainak Jain, Advocates सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenueagainst The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Dated 06.05.2025For The Assessment Year2012-2013. 2. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 69 Days. Considering The Submissions Of The Ld. Cit-Dr & Looking To The Facts Of The Case, We Condone The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,82,00,000/- Made U/S.68 Of The Act On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credits Received From Shell Entities In The Guise Of Share Capital.

For Appellant: ShriSoumitra Choudhury and Rainak Jain, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Tribunal in the case of RN Khemka Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 7244/Del/2019) dated 12.08.2021 held that if there is a non-application of mind in recording reasons, the Assessing Officer (AO) could not be said to have had reason to believe to justify the reopening

Estate of Vandravan P Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5403/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Ms. Shivani ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 159Section 35A

such failure, which is a mandatory jurisdictional precondition for reopening beyond four years. The reasons were further assailed on the ground of non-application of mind. 5.5 The learned CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A) rejected

Estate of Vandravan P Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5402/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Ms. Shivani ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 159Section 35A

such failure, which is a mandatory jurisdictional precondition for reopening beyond four years. The reasons were further assailed on the ground of non-application of mind. 5.5 The learned CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A) rejected

Estate of Vandravan P Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5401/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Shah
Section 147Section 148Section 35A

were further assailed on ur years. The reasons were further assailed on ur years. The reasons were further assailed on the ground of non-application of mind. application of mind. 5.5 The learned CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The learned CIT(A) condoned the delay

Sh. Atar Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Faridabad

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shuklai.T.A. No. 2732/Del/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) Sh. Atar Singh Vs Income Tax Officer House No. 5, Village, Gazipur, Ward 1(1) Gazipur Road, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana-121005 122001 Pan: Dmpps6598B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S.S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 69A

these are merely presumption in nature; that it is a case of mechanical action on the part of the AO as there is non-application of mind much less independent application of mind so as to show that he formed an opinion based on any material that such deposits represented ... also in the reassessment proceedings, where he proceeded to add the entire amount to the income of the assessee. Therefore there was non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and holding that

Shring Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 7056/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Hon’Blea.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

established that the notices issued u/s. 274 of the Act r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is on account of non-application of mind in as much as it is proforma notice where the Assessing Officer has not mentioned whether the fault is for concealment of particulars of income

Bhoj Raj, Agra vs. Ward 1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 436/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

appeal arbitrarily, simply repeating the observations given in assessment order. Asstt order was passed in haste at feg end of limitation period, showing non-application of mind by AO, which is evident from the fact that order was issued within 2 hrs of uploading explanation reply. 2. Because issue

Assam Valley Finance and Investment Pvt Ltd, Guwahati vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 1, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Assam Valley Finance & Dcit, Circle 1 Investment Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, House No.1, Niligiri Path, G.S Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Zoo Road, Guwahati-781024 Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabca6974B Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 68

allowed. 2.6. So far as the re-opening of assessment is concerned, we observe that the same is made with total non-application of mind and in a casual manner as the name of the brokers whose statements were recorded by the investigation wing who admitted to have done trading ... assessment order. Therefore, the reasons recorded by the ld. AO are devoid of any merit and has been recorded with complete non-application of mind and in a very casual manner. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment based on the said reasons cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we quash

Blackstone Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2027/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151

case at hand, the approval that has been sent is of some other assessee and not Petitioner. This also indicates non-application of mind by Respondent No. 1. On this ground also, the order dated 31st March 2023 impugned in the Petition is required to be quashed and set aside