“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

Dileep K Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT CC-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 150/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

were issued u/s 153D of the Act on 30.03.2022 and all are verbatim similar, which shows there was non-application of mind and in a routine manner, the approvals were granted. The ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that in fact, the said approving ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta ... place to mention here that the appellant has not come out with any case that there is case of non-application of mind. The appellant has to positively prove that there is a case of non-application of mind in light of the submission that the approval u/s 153D

Dileep K Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 149/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Dileep K Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 148/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Kisan International Trading Fze, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 6152/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Kisan International Trading Fze, Vs. Acit, Circle C/O Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Int. Tax 2(1)(2), C – 179, Mansarover Garden, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015. (Pan :Aaeck0424D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 19.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 43 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 06.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On Facts & In Law The Order Dated 06Th December 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)'} & Order Dated 23Rd December 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Are Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio.

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 115A(5)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 251

have been generated by the system. 14. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 15.11.2019 since it suffers from complete non-application of mind. The Assessing Officer shall proceed to pass a fresh order after dealing with the submissions raised by the petitioner in its objections. 15. The petition

Indian Tool Technology Centre, Jalandhar vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalandhar

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

ITA 262/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C.A

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56

262/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 185. No doubt, there can exist a case where vagueness and ambiguity in the notice can demonstrate non-application of mind by the authority and/or ultimate prejudice to the right of opportunity of hearing contemplated under s. 274. So asserts Kaushalya. In fact ... assessment year, it set aside the penalty proceedings on the grounds of non-application of mind and prejudice. 186. That said, regarding the other assessment year, it reasons that the assessment order, containing the reasons or justification, avoids prejudice to the assessee. That is where, we reckon, the reasoning suffers

Smt. Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 344/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

that the AO failed to investigate these very aspects. 9.6 The Ld. PCIT has examined the assessment record, identified lack of inquiry and non-application of mind and gave adequate opportunity to the assessee. He also recorded clear reasons why the AO’s order was erroneous and prejudicial

Gautam Pravinchandra Sheth HUF, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 343/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

S R Constructions, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 637/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar,CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 40A

errors, non-cash payments and transactions such as material recoveries etc., are ignored which shows the mechanical and summary nature of proceedings and non-application of mind. 26. Summary tables showing the details and abstracts of work carried out by the sub-contractors

S R Constructions, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

ITA 636/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

Section 40A

Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja, Khakhadabela, Paddhari vs. ITO WD 2(1)(4), RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed, to the extent indicated above

ITA 459/RJT/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.459/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja Vs. Ito Ward 2 (1) (4), Khakhadabela, Paddhari, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot - 360110 Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agvpj2529E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 26/07/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 25/11/2009 U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. That The Reasons Recorded U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Ld. A.O. Were Merely Based On The Suspicion & Without Any Tangible Material So As To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. Hence The Reassessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Quashed Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

bank account number, which was escaped assessment. (ii) The nature of transactions have not been mentioned, in the reasons recorded. (iii) There is non-application of mind of the assessing officer. The assessing officer has not verified the bank account number before issuing notice ... mention the bank account number, which was escaped assessment. The nature of transactions have not been mentioned, in the reasons record. There is non-application of mind of the assessing officer. The assessing officer has not verified the bank account number before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Mere

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Pawan Kumar Jhalani, Jaipur

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

ITA 966/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 132(1)Section 153CSection 4

upon the Satisfaction Note prepared by the Id. AO of the searched person (Shri Tarachand Soni). The Satisfaction Note is verbatim same, reflecting non-application of mind and rendering the very foundation of proceedings under Section 153C bad in law. Relief may please be granted by holding that the assumption ... chat was old. Thus, a statement of non-recollection is not a confirmation and does not incriminate the assessee. 4. MECHANICAL AND NON-APPLICATION OF MIND IN RECORDING SATISFACTION NOTES 4.1. The law mandates a strict two-stage process for a valid initiation of proceedings under Section 153C. This involves

Ador Welding Limited (Successor of Ador Fontech Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we set-aside the order of the Ld

ITA 3338/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2021-22 Ador Welding Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Successor Of Ador Fontech Limited), Income Tax, Ador House, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), 6 K Dubash Marg, Fort, Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001. Aayakar Bhavan, Pan : Aaaca9076B Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal KakuFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

thus rests on a completely new and untested foundation, in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, and suffers from non-application of mind and argued that Courts have consistently held that – “assessment order passed without giving 7 days time to assessee to file objections in response

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Gudwala & Sons, Delhi

In the result, the cross objections being CO No

ITA 4247/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanacit, Vs. Gudwala & Sons, 1165, 3Rd Floor, Kucha Mahajani, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Aaifg7585N) Co No.166/Del/2025 (In Ita No.4247/Del/2025) (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Gudwala & Sons, Vs. Acit, 1165, 3Rd Floor, Kucha Mahajani, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Ackpn0439N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Order : 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 23 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 20.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 292CSection 65B(4)

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

Singla Apparels Private Limited, Gandhi Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5163/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito House No.17, Street No.2, Ward Shankar Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, C.R. Building, Ito Krishan Nagar, Delhi-110051. I.P.Estate Pan-Aajcs3628L New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito 7244, Mahavir Gali Ward Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-1100531. C.R. Building, Ito Pan-Aajcs3628L I.P.Estate New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Utkarsa Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dt.11.06.2024 & 12.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-8/10554/2019-20 & In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10058210 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Penalty

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

notice u/s 156 creating demand of Rs.1,91,35,331/- alleging undisclosed source of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 which is injudicious. non-application of mind and against the factual position. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not considering the first appeal to the effect that ... fully disclosed in the books of account. 6. The order passed u/s 250 by the Ld. CIT(A). Delhi is flawed, frivolous, non-application of mind and contrary to the points raised by assessee confronting the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) by the AO. 7. That

Singla Apparels Pvt Ltd, Gandhi Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3445/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

DCIT Central Circle- 14, Delhi vs. Anuj Nagpal, New Delhi

In the result, the cross objections being CO No

ITA 1761/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit, Central Circle 14, Vs. Anuj Nagpal, B-64, 1St Floor, New Delhi. Greater Kailash Part 1, New Delhi – 110 048. (Pan : Ackpn0439N) Co No.03/Del/2024 (In Ita No.1761/Del/2022) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Anuj Nagpal, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 14, B-64, 1St Floor, New Delhi. Greater Kailash Part 1, New Delhi – 110 048. (Pan : Ackpn0439N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akash Ojha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Order : 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.05.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Akash Ojha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 153D

Rohit Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 760/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gauta, CIT-DR

Section 153CSection 69C

that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is legally untenable and vitiated by non-application of mind as well as failure to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the law. It is a settled principle that for valid