← All Phrases

“non application of mind”

Natural JusticeApplication of MindApplication of Mind701 judgments

BANGALORE UNION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2483/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (by Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

individuals were not the shareholders of the company during the assessment year, thereby vitiating the disputed additions made in its entirety on complete non application of mind. 9. The NFAC, Delhi erred in sustaining the additions of Rs.6,57,79,675/- being the “Share application money pending allocation” as income

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

91/2019] u/s151 (465 ITR 356), is also relied by ld. Counsel for the same proposition that approval should not show non application of mind. As in this case where the copy of approval in PB at Page. No. 40 shows in remark Column, approval is granted by mere words “Approved

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

91/2019] u/s151 (465 ITR 356), is also relied by ld. Counsel for the same proposition that approval should not show non application of mind. As in this case where the copy of approval in PB at Page. No. 40 shows in remark Column, approval is granted by mere words “Approved

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

91/2019] u/s151 (465 ITR 356), is also relied by ld. Counsel for the same proposition that approval should not show non application of mind. As in this case where the copy of approval in PB at Page. No. 40 shows in remark Column, approval is granted by mere words “Approved

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

91/2019] u/s151 (465 ITR 356), is also relied by ld. Counsel for the same proposition that approval should not show non application of mind. As in this case where the copy of approval in PB at Page. No. 40 shows in remark Column, approval is granted by mere words “Approved

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

91/2019] u/s151 (465 ITR 356), is also relied by ld. Counsel for the same proposition that approval should not show non application of mind. As in this case where the copy of approval in PB at Page. No. 40 shows in remark Column, approval is granted by mere words “Approved

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

91/2019] u/s151 (465 ITR 356), is also relied by ld. Counsel for the same proposition that approval should not show non application of mind. As in this case where the copy of approval in PB at Page. No. 40 shows in remark Column, approval is granted by mere words “Approved

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

91/2019] u/s151 (465 ITR 356), is also relied by ld. Counsel for the same proposition that approval should not show non application of mind. As in this case where the copy of approval in PB at Page. No. 40 shows in remark Column, approval is granted by mere words “Approved

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARTHIV JAWAHARBHAI SHAH, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes while Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1038/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

gathered by the Investigation Wing of the Department, but despite so the allegation of borrowed satisfaction of the AO or for that matter non application of mind by the AO, is only a general allegation levelled by the assessee without any specific reference to the material and information made available

PARTHIV JAWAHARBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes while Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1030/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

gathered by the Investigation Wing of the Department, but despite so the allegation of borrowed satisfaction of the AO or for that matter non application of mind by the AO, is only a general allegation levelled by the assessee without any specific reference to the material and information made available

PRAGNABEN JAYESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 885/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.885/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम/ Pragnaben Jayeshbhai Patel The Ito V/S. 71, Satyanarayan Society Ward-2(3)(3) Dindoli Surat Surat – 394 210 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bcvpp 2891 Q (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R 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 20/06/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Make An Addition Of Rs. 15,00,000/- Without Having Any Foundational Facts Which Leads To Reason To Believe That Income Has Escaped Assessment. It Is The Settled Position Of Law That Only Cash Deposit Is Not The Ground Of Initiating Assessment As The Same Is Nothing But The Inquiry By The Learned Assessing Officer & Therefore, Notice Issued Under Section 148 Deserves To Be Quashed & Set Aside. Pragnaben Jayeshbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

incurring expenses. The learned assessing officer has completely disregarded the debit side of the bank statement and made addition which reflects the complete non application of mind by the learned assessing officer and therefore, the addition deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. In the facts and circumstances

LABH COMBINES PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2382/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

well as assessment order dated 17.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. In our opinion, there is complete non application of mind by the AO. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

SURANA BROS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 12(1),, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2143/KOL/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

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

GA/1/2024 dated 14.11.2025. 7. Accordingly, we quash the reopening of assessment on the ground of being on borrowed satisfaction and without non application of mind. The ground no. 1 is allowed. 8. The issue raised in Ground No. 2 against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the reopening

QUETZAL BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed as indicated above

ITA 6409/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

moot question that arises for\nour consideration is as to whether the\nreopening which is made based on incorrect\nassumption of fact and non-application of mind\nby the Id. AO could be held to be valid. This\nissue has been addressed by the Hon'ble\nJurisdictional High Court

P KUPPUCHAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 223/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

grounds that:\n(i) the notices issued u/s.153C are based on a combined satisfaction, which is contrary to law and evidences non-application of mind;\n(ii) the approval granted u/s.153D is invalid, being a composite approval and vitiated by lack of due application of mind ... that the assessees did not cooperate in the assessment and did not submit any details during the course of assessment, which also reflects non-application of mind on part of the JCIT.\n3) It can also be seen that in the table that is drawn up in the approval, there

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 222/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

grounds \nthat:\n(i) the notices issued u/s.153C are based on a combined \nsatisfaction, which is contrary to law and evidences non-application \nof mind;\n(ii) the approval granted u/s.153D is invalid, being a composite \napproval and vitiated by lack of due application of mind ... Appraisal \nReport as inbuilt in the \nSOPs and mere absence \nof its recitals in the order \nu/s.153D cannot be \ninferred as non application of mind. \nBasically the AO and \nRange Head work as a \nteam during assessment \nand it is not as if \nassessment records \nchange hands for the first

P KUPPUCHAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, , COIMBATORE

ITA 216/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

assessments on the grounds that: (i) the notices issued u/s.153C are based on a combined satisfaction, which is contrary to law and evidences non-application of mind; ITA No.1119/Chny/2025 & ‘60’ Others Mr. P. Palanisamy M/s. P.P. Financiers Mr. P. Kuppuchamy Mr. L. Karuppusamy M/s. P.P. Enterprises Mr. Palanisamy Raghupathy ... that the assessees did not cooperate in the assessment and did not submit any details during the course of assessment, which also reflects non-application of mind on part of the JCIT. 3) It can also be seen that in the table that is drawn up in the approval, there

P.P. FINANCIERS,DINDIGUL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 203/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

grounds \nthat: \n(i) the notices issued u/s.153C are based on a combined \nsatisfaction, which is contrary to law and evidences non-application \nof mind; \n==End of OCR for page 9==\n(ii) the approval granted u/s.153D is invalid, being a composite \napproval and vitiated by lack ... Appraisal \nReport as inbuilt in the \nSOPs and mere absence \nof its recitals in the order \nu/s.153D cannot be \ninferred as non application of mind. \nBasically the AO and \nRange Head work as a \nteam during assessment \nand it is not as if \nassessment records \nchange hands for the first

P.P. FINANCIERS,DINDIGUL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 202/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

grounds \nthat:\n\n(i) the notices issued u/s.153C are based on a combined \nsatisfaction, which is contrary to law and evidences non-application \nof mind;\n\n(ii) the approval granted u/s.153D is invalid, being a composite \napproval and vitiated by lack of due application of mind ... Appraisal \nReport as inbuilt in the \nSOPs and mere absence \nof its recitals in the order \nu/s.153D cannot be \ninferred as non application of mind. \nBasically the AO and \nRange Head work as a \nteam during assessment \nand it is not as if \nassessment records \nchange hands for the first

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,KARUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 3390/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

grounds that:\n(i) the notices issued u/s.153C are based on a combined satisfaction, which is contrary to law and evidences non-application of mind;\n(ii) the approval granted u/s.153D is invalid, being a composite approval and vitiated by lack of due application of mind ... that the assessees did not cooperate in the assessment and did not submit any details during the course of assessment, which also reflects non-application of mind on part of the JCIT.\n3) It can also be seen that in the table that is drawn up in the approval, there

Showing 1–20 of 701 · Page 1 of 36

...