← 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

The Farmer Bank Staff Co-Operative Society Ltd, Fort, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers

ITA 5686/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

show that the Ld. Commissioner has wrongly applied the facts of any other case for adjudication of this case under consideration, which shows non-application of mind, however, whatsoever it may be, the issue qua deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act on account of interest/dividend earned from

Ashu Ashok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1046/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 271Section 68

assessment records, including seized documents and relevant issues arising from them. • The assessee has failed to produce any material or evidence demonstrating non-application of mind by the Addl. CIT. 3. Nature and Scope of Section 153D Approval • The approving authority, i.e., the Addl./Joint CIT, exercises administrative and supervisory ... approval granted by the Addl. CIT under Section l53D enjoys a presumption of validity unless rebutted by credible evidence. • The burden to prove non-application of mind squarely lies on the assessee, and such burden must be discharged through cogent material and not by conjectures or assumptions

Ashu Ashok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1045/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 271Section 68

assessment records, including seized documents and relevant issues arising from them. • The assessee has failed to produce any material or evidence demonstrating non-application of mind by the Addl. CIT. 3. Nature and Scope of Section 153D Approval • The approving authority, i.e., the Addl./Joint CIT, exercises administrative and supervisory ... approval granted by the Addl. CIT under Section l53D enjoys a presumption of validity unless rebutted by credible evidence. • The burden to prove non-application of mind squarely lies on the assessee, and such burden must be discharged through cogent material and not by conjectures or assumptions

Ashu Asok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 271Section 68

assessment records, including seized documents and relevant issues arising from them. • The assessee has failed to produce any material or evidence demonstrating non-application of mind by the Addl. CIT. 3. Nature and Scope of Section 153D Approval • The approving authority, i.e., the Addl./Joint CIT, exercises administrative and supervisory ... approval granted by the Addl. CIT under Section l53D enjoys a presumption of validity unless rebutted by credible evidence. • The burden to prove non-application of mind squarely lies on the assessee, and such burden must be discharged through cogent material and not by conjectures or assumptions

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Jamna Dass Nikkamal Jain Saraf Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 628/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh04 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148BSection 151Section 69A

assessment order invalid. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by these precedents. Once the statutory approval suffers 18 from non-application of mind, the consequential assessment cannot survive in the eyes of law. 18.4 In AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held that an assessment framed

Jamna Dass Nikkamal Jain Saraf Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 403/CHANDI/2025[2022-2023]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh04 Nov 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148BSection 151Section 69A

assessment order invalid. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by these precedents. Once the statutory approval suffers 18 from non-application of mind, the consequential assessment cannot survive in the eyes of law. 18.4 In AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held that an assessment framed

Akashdeep Cloth Centre, Kannad vs. Principal CIT, Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 959/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Shubham N. Rathi and Ashutosh DhootFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69B

interests of the Revenue, but only on the basis that no inquiry has been conducted on the issue and it smacks non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, reached to the conclusion that the order sought to be revised is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

Manmandir Cloth Centre, Kannad vs. PCIT, Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Shubham N. Rathi and Ashutosh DhootFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69B

interests of the Revenue, but only on the basis that no inquiry has been conducted on the issue and it smacks non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, reached to the conclusion that the order sought to be revised is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 472/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 DCIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Motion Education Limited, 394, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Kota Private स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAICM4637L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Motion Limited, CO. Nos.20 & 21/JP/2025 (Arising out of ITA. Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 &

For Appellant: Mrs. Raksha Birla CA (V.C)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 153A

that case Hon'ble High Court held as under: "In the case at hand, there is nothing to indicate that there was non-application of mind. Merely because information was received at 5.47 p.m. and the notice was issued by 10:49 p.m. would not mean that there has been ... non-application of mind. If we hold that it would be merely speculative and based on conjecture." This judgment was rendered with reference to approval granted by the CIT for issuing notice u/s 148. However, the ratio of this judgment is applicable on the facts of this case. The appellant

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 455/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Mrs. Raksha Birla CA (V.C)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 153A

that case Hon'ble High Court held as under: "In the case at hand, there is nothing to indicate that there was non-application of mind. Merely because information was received at 5.47 p.m. and the notice was issued by 10:49 p.m. would not mean that there has been ... non-application of mind. If we hold that it would be merely speculative and based on conjecture." This judgment was rendered with reference to approval granted by the CIT for issuing notice u/s 148. However, the ratio of this judgment is applicable on the facts of this case. The appellant

ACIT(E), Lucknow vs. M/S. Bhagwant Institute of Technology, Bijnor

ITA 219/LKW/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.219/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit (Exemptions) V. M/S. Bhagwant Institute Of Technology T. C. 46V, 5Th Floor, U.P.S.I.D.C Ltd., Vibhutikhhand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226001. Avas Vikas Coloney, Bijnor-243001. Pan:Aaatb4195M अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कि और से/Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal Cit(Dr) प्रत्यर्थी कि और से /Respondent By: Shri Vinod Kumar, Ca सुनवाई कि तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05 08 2025 घोषणा कि तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31 10 2025 आदेश / O R Der Per Kul Bharat.: This Appeal, By The Revenue, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Moradabad Dated 17.03.2020, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Allowing The Benefit Of Section 11 Thereby Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,66,94,072/- In The Form Of Admission & Smart Card Fees, Exam Fee, Fee Receipts, Projects Fees, Uniform Fees, Internet Fees & Book Bank Receipts From The Students Beyond The Prescribed Amount Of Fees As Decided By The Govt. Authorities, Which Clearly Indicates That The Objects Of The Assessee Are Not Charitable; 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.37,55,277/- Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Could Not Substantiate It'S Claim With Documentary Evidences

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Agarwal CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, CA
Section 11Section 143(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण 'ए' न्यायपीठ, लखनऊ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW श्री कुल भारत, उपाध्यक्ष

R. Mangaldas Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 17/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyr. Mangaldas Charitable Trust, Cit (Exemptions), A-82, Vishnu Baug, Room No. 601, 137, S.V. Road, Vs. 6Th Floor, Andheri (W), Cumballa Hills, Mumbai-400058. Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Pan : Aaatr0606H Dr.Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Niraj Seth For Revenue : Shri Umashankar Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions)-Mumbai [„Ld.Cit(E)‟], Dated 19-11-2024, Rejecting The Assessee‟S Application Moved U/S. 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

application of income as aforesaid outside India. Reading the order dated 24-2-2004, it is very clear that there is 7 non-application of mind. It was necessary for the Commissioner to examine the purpose for satisfying himself that the activities are genuine. It was open ... Board for application of income as aforesaid outside India. Reading the order dated February 24, 2004, it is very clear that there is non-application of mind, it was necessary for the Commissioner to examine the purpose for satisfying himself that the activities are genuine. It was open

Mitra Parivar, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 16/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharymitra Parivar, Cit (Exemptions), 301, Maganlal Kala, Room No. 601, Gulmohar Road No.1, Vs. 6Th Floor, Jvpd Extn. Cumballa Hills, Andheri (West), Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400049. Dr.Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Pan : Aaatm5059M Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Niraj Seth For Revenue : Shri Umashankar Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions)-Mumbai [„Ld.Cit(E)‟], Dated 19-11-2024, Rejecting The Assessee‟S Application Moved U/S. 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Board for application of income as aforesaid outside India. Reading the order dated 24-2-2004, it is very clear that there is non-application of mind. It was necessary for the Commissioner to examine the purpose for satisfying himself that the activities are genuine. It was open ... Board for application of income as aforesaid outside India. Reading the order dated February 24, 2004, it is very clear that there is non-application of mind, it was necessary for the Commissioner to examine the purpose for satisfying himself that the activities are genuine. It was open

The Milestone Aviation Asset Holding Group No.25 Ltd., Ireland vs. ACIT Int. Tax. Circle 3(1)(1) New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, this issue is decided in favour of the appellant assessees and against the Revenue

ITA 1351/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1350/Del./2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Vertical Aviation No. 1 Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Dolmen House, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, 4 Earlsfort Terrace, Vs. Circle Int. Tax. - 3(1)(1), Dublin 2, Ireland Do2E024 Civic Centre, Minto Road, Pan: Aafcv8726N New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.1351/Del./2025, A.Y. 2022-23 The Milestone Aviation Assistant Commissioner Of Asset Holding Group No. 25 Income Tax, Ltd., Vs. Circle Int. Tax. - 3(1)(1), Dolmen House, 3Rd Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road, 4 Earlsfort Terrace, New Delhi-10002 Dublin 2, Ireland D02E024 Pan: Aahct8009N (Appellant) (Respondent) Both Appellant By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate Ms. Rashi Khanna, Advocate Ms. Viyushti Rawat, Advocate (Vc) Sh. Devansh Jain, Advocate Ms. Disha Jham, Advocate Sh. Soham Dua, Advocate, Sh. Hardeep Singh, Advocate & Sh. A. S. Bajpai, Advocate Both Respondent By Shri Indruj S. Rai, Spl. Counsel, Sh. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Sc, Sh. Rahul Singh, Jr. Sc, Sh. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. Ms. Rini Handa, Jcit (Intl. Tax) Date Of Hearing 12/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 Common & Identical.

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 194LSection 9(1)(vii)

those cases had been reiterated here though the facts of these cases were different. The Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that this clearly showed non-application of mind at the part of the Ld. AO and the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) as both Authorities had mentioned incorrect facts in their

Vertical Aviation No. 1 Limited, Ireland vs. ACIT Int. Tax. Circle 3(1)(1) New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, this issue is decided in favour of the appellant assessees and against the Revenue

ITA 1350/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1350/Del./2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Vertical Aviation No. 1 Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Dolmen House, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, 4 Earlsfort Terrace, Vs. Circle Int. Tax. - 3(1)(1), Dublin 2, Ireland Do2E024 Civic Centre, Minto Road, Pan: Aafcv8726N New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.1351/Del./2025, A.Y. 2022-23 The Milestone Aviation Assistant Commissioner Of Asset Holding Group No. 25 Income Tax, Ltd., Vs. Circle Int. Tax. - 3(1)(1), Dolmen House, 3Rd Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road, 4 Earlsfort Terrace, New Delhi-10002 Dublin 2, Ireland D02E024 Pan: Aahct8009N (Appellant) (Respondent) Both Appellant By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate Ms. Rashi Khanna, Advocate Ms. Viyushti Rawat, Advocate (Vc) Sh. Devansh Jain, Advocate Ms. Disha Jham, Advocate Sh. Soham Dua, Advocate, Sh. Hardeep Singh, Advocate & Sh. A. S. Bajpai, Advocate Both Respondent By Shri Indruj S. Rai, Spl. Counsel, Sh. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Sc, Sh. Rahul Singh, Jr. Sc, Sh. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. Ms. Rini Handa, Jcit (Intl. Tax) Date Of Hearing 12/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 Common & Identical.

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 194LSection 9(1)(vii)

those cases had been reiterated here though the facts of these cases were different. The Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that this clearly showed non-application of mind at the part of the Ld. AO and the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) as both Authorities had mentioned incorrect facts in their

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3084/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee, stresses Kaushalya, "fully knew in detail the exact charge of the Revenue against him". For Kaushalya, the statutory notice suffered from neither non-application of mind nor any prejudice. According to it, "the so-called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right ... contemplated under section 274. So asserts Kaushalya. In fact, for one 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

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3083/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee, stresses Kaushalya, "fully knew in detail the exact charge of the Revenue against him". For Kaushalya, the statutory notice suffered from neither non-application of mind nor any prejudice. According to it, "the so-called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right ... contemplated under section 274. So asserts Kaushalya. In fact, for one 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

Sh.Mohit Batola, Dehradun vs. ACIT, CC, Ddn, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/DDN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mohit Batola Vs Acit 155, Village Miyanwala Central Circle P.O.-Harrawala, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aftpb3533M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Verendra Kalra, Ca Revenue By Shri S.K.Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2025 Order

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(1)

standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also ... income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in such a situation, levy of penalty suffers from non-application of mind. In the background of the aforesaid legal position and having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has issued notices under

Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-3, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for e appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 660/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Jitendrakumarambelal Patel Ito, Ward-3, 52, Kanbiwad. At & Po-Pananj, Room No. 108, Swapnalok Soc., Tal-Chikhli, Navsari-396521 Vs. Near Kaliawadi Bridge, Navsari - 396521 Pan No. Bncpp 7509 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri P M Jagasheth, CA
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

present case, the record does not disclose any In the present case, the record does not disclose any element of non-application of mind. On the contrary, it is evident application of mind. On the contrary, it is evident application of mind. On the contrary, it is evident that

Rajvee Exports, Surat vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Surat

In the result, we find no infirmity in the impugned order

ITA 520/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Rajvee Exports, Dcit, Central Circle 3, 400, Shri Godiji Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Devidas Pipla Road, Vs. Surat-395001. Mahidharpura, S.O. Surat-395003. Pan No. Aagfr 1008 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263

documents. Such perfunctory acceptance, in our considered documents. Such perfunctory acceptance, in our considered view, amounts to a non view, amounts to a non-application of mind and renders the application of mind and renders the order amenable to revision under section 263. enable to revision under section