“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

Aarti Sponge and Power Ltd., Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur - 1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 78/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 263

called for the assessment records and found that no enquiry has been made on the issues by the AO even non-application of mind before reaching any conclusion. Thus, the ld. Pr. CIT set aside the assessment so framed by the AO, holding that the assessment order is erroneous insofar ... vehemently supported the order of ld. Pr. CIT and submitted that there is no proper enquiry by the AO even there is non-application of mind on the part of the AO in passing the assessment order. The assessee failed to furnish any document in support its claim be produce

Ashok Kumar Singh, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-2(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 150/RPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 150/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Singh P-10, Rishab Green City, Pulgaon, Durg-491 001 (C.G) Pan : Bcfps1394K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(2), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

same may not be imposed on him. The non-specifying of the charge in the ‘Show cause’ notice not only reflects the non-application of mind by the A.O but defeats the very purpose of giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as envisaged under ... Apex Court was of the view that the non-striking off the irrelevant limb in the notice clearly revealed a non-application of mind by the A.O, and had observed as under:- “83. It is of some significance that in the standard proforma used by the Assessing Officer in issuing

D V Properties Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

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

ITA 121/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) D. V. Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit - 1, 748-749, Golden Plaza Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms Chaitali Shah, Ca Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43B

No.121/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 D. V. Properties Pvt. Ltd. inquired/verified the issues as discussed above, for the year under consideration, which reflects non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(38) of the Act, dated 30.03.2021 was treated by ld PCIT

Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

unsecured loans. This in turn has resulted in passing of an erroneous order by the Assessing Officer in the case due to non-application of mind to relevant material, reflecting non appreciation of facts and an incorrect application of mind to law which is prejudicial to the interest

Columbus Overseas LLP, 16, Raja Park, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 196/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Neena Dadwani, Ujjain vs. PCIT-1, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 131/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Neena Dadwani, Pcit-1, 6, Sunshine Tower, Indore. बनाम/ Priyadarshini Square, Ujjain Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abopd0598D Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law, or the AO has completely omitted to make any enquiry altogether or the order demonstrates non-application of mind. 7.8 Now in the facts before us, in the case of the assessee the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, made enquiries on this

Janseva Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-17, Mumbai

ITA 1225/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhjanseva Co-Operative Vs. Pcit-17 Credit Society Limited Room No. 120, 1 St Floor, 408, Maker Bhavan No. 3, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To 21, New Marine Lines, C-43, G Block, Bandra Mumbai – 400 020 Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaaj7811P Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Tanzil Padvekar Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor Date Of Hearing 25.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit-17, Mumbai, Dated 30.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-17 Erred In Passing The Impugned Order Under Section 263 Of The Act By Invoking Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Jurisdiction. Hence, The Impugned Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Without Meeting Jurisdictional Requirement As Twin Mandatory Conditions Are Not Fulfilled For Invoking Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-17 Has Erred In Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Totgars Co-Operative Sale Society V/S. Income Tax

For Appellant: Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Ankush Kapoor

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

without due verification of the material available on record and the Order passed under Section 263 of the Act suffers from total non-application of mind and therefore the impugned Order is bad in law. 7. On the facts and in law the Ld. Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank

Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 41/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

aforesaid category of "errors" if it is, inter alia, based on an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law or non-application of mind to something which was obvious and required application of mind or based on no or insufficient materials so as to affect the merits

Prashant Manohar Bhagwat, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 86/RPR/2023[2014-5]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 86/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prashant Manohar Bhagwat H. No.11, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Ahfpb6105K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

same may not be imposed on him. The non-specifying of the charge in the ‘Show cause’ notice not only reflects the non-application of mind by the A.O, but in fact defeats the very purpose of giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as envisaged under ... Apex Court was of the view that the non-striking off the irrelevant limb in the notice clearly revealed a non-application of mind by the A.O, and had observed as under:- “83. It is of some significance that in the standard proforma used by the Assessing Officer in issuing

Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 699/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 234B

No.699/Del/2020 2 Assessing officer has not applied his mind in recording satisfaction note for re-opening the assessment. It is further submitted that non-application of mind by the superior authorities while giving approval for re-opening the assessment. 2. That Learned C.I.T.(A) has erred in law in confirming

Vatika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1763/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 1763/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 Vatika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, बनाम 621A, Devika Towers, Central Circle : 8, Vs. 6 – Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 019. Pan No. Aabci2522B अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee, stresses Kaushaiya, "fully knew in detail the exact charge of the Revenue against him". For Kaushaiya, 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 ... should not be done ", 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 section 274. So asserts Kaushalya. In fact, for one assessment

Nahar Colours and Coatinhgs Private Limited, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincometax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

under section 263 by the Commissioner proper and valid. [CIT. Nagpur v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.(2017) 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bombay High Court)] 4.2. Non-application of mind is a ground for interference under Section 263 in the case of CIT v. ShriBhagwan Das, (2005) 272 ITR 367 (All) the Division

Khomram Chandrawanshi (HUF), Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 165/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 165/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Khomram Chandrawanshi (Huf) House No.18, Ring Road Chowk, Krishnasakha Society, Rohinipuram, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan : Aakhk2082E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

Allied Photographics India Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S Alliedphotographics Vs. Pr.Cit-1, India Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Room No.330, Kasturi Buildings, 3Rd Floor, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. : Aabca2068A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitish Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Smiti Samant. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-1, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nitish Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Smiti Samant. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

order of ITO observing that order of ITO did not contain discussion in regard to allow ability of claim for deduction which indicated non-application of mind and that claim of assessee required examination as to whether expenditure in question was a revenue or capital expenditure and directed

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

provisions of law. This in turn has resulted in passing of an erroneous order by the Assessing Officer in the case due to non-application of mind to relevant material, an incorrect assumption of facts and an incorrect application of mind to the law which la prejudicial to the interest ... provisions of law. This in turn has resulted in passing of an erroneous order by the Assessing Officer in the case due to non-application of mind to relevant material, an incorrect assumption of facts and an incorrect application of 10 AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD . JAIPUR VS PCIT

Jayton Trading Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/RPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.65/Rpr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Jayton Trading Private Limited, Vs Dcit (Central)-2, Raipur 15, Crooked Lane, 1St Floor, Hare Street, Kolkata Pan No. :Aaacj 6659 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate, Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31 /07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Bhopal, Dated 06.07.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Dated 06/07/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act Dated 30/12/2019 Are Illegal & Void Ab Initio. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Not Confirming That The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2019 Is Bad In Law. 2.1 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Not Holding That The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2019 Is Time Barred By Limitation In View Of First Proviso To Section 147 Of The Act. 2.2 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Confirming The Reason Recorded U/S 148(2) Of The Act Though The Same Is Only A Change Of Opinion On Account Of Borrowed Satisfaction Without Application Of Mind By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

minutes between the issuance of notice and the approval on the reasons to believe should be considered as complete non-application of mind on the part of the authority granting sanctions u/s.151 of the Act. Since, there is no prior sanction granted by the Pr.CIT in the present case before

Shri Surti Modh Vanik Jagruti Mandal, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward-2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1316/MUM/2023[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1315 & 1316/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Surti Modh Vanik बिधम/ Ito(E), Ward-2(3) Jagruti Mandal

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(b)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(ii)

reason given by the Ld. CIT(E) to reject the application for registration u/s 12AB & 80G of the Act cannot be sustained for non-application of mind. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and restore the application for registration u/s 12AB

Shri Surti Modh Vanik Jagruti Mandal, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward-2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1315/MUM/2023[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2023-2024

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(b)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(ii)

Ram Narayan Contractor, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-62(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Section 129Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 272Section 272BSection 274

should not be done ", 185. No doubt, there can exist a case where vagueness and ambiguity in the notice can demonstrate non-application of mind by Page 6 of 10 Ram Narayan Contractor vs. ACIT the authority and/or ultimate prejudice to the right of opportunity of hearing contemplated under section ... 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 to the assessee. That

Omega Finhold Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

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

ITA 1286/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Section 115JSection 147Section 148

distinct all those materials and he must also show that what was material on record. Hence, initiation of proceedings is also based on non-application of mind much less independent application of mind……. 6.3 I further note that in the reasons recorded assessee has relied upon the information