← All Phrases

“non application of mind”

Natural JusticeApplication of MindApplication of Mind701 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. Kaushalya
216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court
511
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

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.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court
471
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

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.

Judgments citing non application of mind

Sellamuthu Kabilan, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Cricle 3, Coimbatore

ITA 3376/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

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; (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. 3) It can also be seen that in the table that is drawn up in the approval, there

Palanisamy Raghupathy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

ITA 3371/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

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; ==End of OCR for page 7== (ii) the approval granted u/s.153D is invalid, being a composite approval and vitiated by lack ... 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

Suresh Ratilal Lodaria, Anjar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2, Gandhidham.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

unwell and died in 2017 and he pointed out that AO mentioned in order assessee died whereas assessee father died so non application of mind by AO Appellant argument that since there is no revenue loss as ITR was accepted in reassessment proceedings is not acceptable as the penalty ... father it is true that AO had made the mistake. The question is that des this mistake makes the entire order perverse as non application of mind by AO. I am of the view that though the mistake by AO is grave it does not make the order perverse

Bhavana Suresh Chauhan, Borivali West vs. Ward42(1)(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 7290/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhavana Suresh Chauhan Ito, Ward-42(1)(1), Mumbai 703, Kguru Residency, 1 Babai Naka, Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai, Dharamdas Marg, Borivali West, Maharashtra – 400051. Mumbai – 400097. [Pan No. Adipc1169K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 254(1)Section 68

escaped income for loan received is Rs. 20,11,178 .When Bhavana Suresh Chauhan actually it was 10 lakh only showing complete non application of mind and borrowed satisfaction. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that there was no “reason to believe” and no tangible material

DCIT, CC-18, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Jagat Agro Commodties Pv. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 1883/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Sh. Shailesh GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

alleged accommodation entry provider on the basis of which reasons were recorded, as such the instant proceedings, so initiated being with non application of mind and without any tangible material, are bad in law and without jurisdiction. Additional Ground No. 3 That even otherwise, rejection of books of accounts ... aforesaid Additional Ground No. 1 so raised in Rule 27 application by the assessee-respondent, stated that on this issue there is clear non-application of mind by AO in the reasons recorded as the same have been recorded on the basis of information received from the ADIT (Inv.), without

DCIT, CC-18, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Jagat Agro Commodties Pv. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 1882/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Sh. Shailesh GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

alleged accommodation entry provider on the basis of which reasons were recorded, as such the instant proceedings, so initiated being with non application of mind and without any tangible material, are bad in law and without jurisdiction. Additional Ground No. 3 That even otherwise, rejection of books of accounts ... aforesaid Additional Ground No. 1 so raised in Rule 27 application by the assessee-respondent, stated that on this issue there is clear non-application of mind by AO in the reasons recorded as the same have been recorded on the basis of information received from the ADIT (Inv.), without

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5375/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, SR-DR a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah
Section 147Section 68

contended that the reopening The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the reopening is vitiated due to non is vitiated due to non-application of mind. It was submitted that application of mind. It was submitted that while recording reasons, the Assessing Officer proceeded on the while recording reasons ... share to believe that income escaped without verifying the fact of share application money amounts to non appl application money amounts to non application of mind by the ld ication of mind by the ld AO. The contention of the assessee that the Assessing Officer ought The contention

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5374/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan()

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah
Section 147Section 250Section 68

under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the reopening is vitiated due to non-application of mind. It was submitted that while recording reasons, the Assessing Officer proceeded on the premise that the assessee had received share application money ... counsel for the assessee, recording of reasons to believe that income escaped without verifying the fact of share application money amounts to non application of mind by the ld AO. The contention of the assessee that the Assessing Officer ought to have verified whether share application money

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5373/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan()

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah
Section 147Section 250Section 68

under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the reopening is vitiated due to non-application of mind. It was submitted that while recording reasons, the Assessing Officer proceeded on the premise that the assessee had received share application money

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5372/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan()

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah
Section 147Section 250Section 68

under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the reopening is vitiated due to non-application of mind. It was submitted that while recording reasons, the Assessing Officer proceeded on the premise that the assessee had received share application money

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5371/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, SR-DR a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah
Section 147Section 68

contended that the reopening The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the reopening is vitiated due to non is vitiated due to non-application of mind. It was submitted that application of mind. It was submitted that while recording reasons, the Assessing Officer proceeded on the while recording reasons ... share to believe that income escaped without verifying the fact of share application money amounts to non appl application money amounts to non application of mind by the ld ication of mind by the ld AO. The contention of the assessee that the Assessing Officer ought The contention

Yashpal Grover, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(1), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 6280/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

Yashpal Grover vs ITO copies the AO's version without independent adjudication so there is non application of mind so the order deserves to be dismissed and so non-operative. (2) The Ld. CIT (A) failed to act as an independent adjudicating authority so the order passed ... ITAT is the second appellate authority and has the power to set aside orders where there is a clear non- application of mind. 5 | P a g e 6280_DEL_2025_Yashpal Grover vs ITO (29) The Appellant craves for the permission to add, modify or delete

Pinnacle Consrto and Ecohomes Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT Circle-4, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2818/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2818/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pinnacle Contro & V Dcit, Ecohomes Pvt. Ltd., S Circle-4, Pune. Madhav Heritage, Tilak Road, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaecp0400E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P. Bora Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18Dated 01.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Act, Dated 27.08.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Reassessment Bad In Law.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)

Income Tax U/s. 151 of the Act to issue Notice u/s 148 of the Act), thereby violating principles of natural justice. 4. Non application of mind. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Id AO had not applied of his mind to the assertions and contentions raised

Ketan Harilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commssioner of Income Tax - 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing

ITA 6689/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

from record of demat. The Ld. AO in his order 5 Ketan Harilal Mehta stated erroneous and unrelated facts at various places shows non application of mind on his part. During investigation of SEBI there is no evidence that the assessee is involved in price rigging. So, the addition

M/S. Bms Sales Pvt. Ltd., Purulia vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

assessee during the year , the sale of shares/investments to the tune of %26,50,90,000/- were accepted. This shows total non application of mind by the AO during assessment proceedings. Therefore the action of the Id. CIT (A) in confirming the order of the Id. AO is not sustainable

Vikas Jain, Kanpur vs. ACIT-CC 2(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 434/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Vikas Jain, Vs. The Acit, H-2/1, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur- Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur 208001 208006 Pan: Abqpj8049R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 17.05.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 27.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because There Being No Reason To Believe, Far From There Being Any Material To Form Reasons To Believe, The Proceedings Initiated Right From Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 & The Re-Assessment Framed Thereof Are All Without Jurisdiction Bad In Law, The Order Passed Be Quashed. 02. Because The So-Called Reasons Having Been Recorded Applying Explanation 2(A) To Section 147, Of The Act Which Not Being Applicable, The Very Reason To Believe Being Contrary To The Mandate Of The Section, The Proceedings- Initiated U/S 148, The Reassessment Framed Are All Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Approval Given By The Competent Authority U/S 151, Being Mechanical In Nature Without Verification Of Facts, The Notice Issued U/S 148 & The Reassessment Framed Thereafter Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156Section 48Section 50C

High Court had held that if the ld. AO had held so then the amount that was treated as escaping assessment also indicated non application of mind. 11. On the other hand, ld. DRs have placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case

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. 3. That without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, the re- assessment proceedings have been initiated on fundamentally wrong facts clearly demonstrating non application of mind and the subsequent action of the Ld. A.O in framing a re-assessment order for the AY 2013-14 based on same wrong ... 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

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 ... /Bang/2025 Page 20 of 22 23. Generally, it is the duty of the person who alleges non application of mind of authority, to prove it with reasonable inconsistencies there in, otherwise ' non application of mind" is ITA Nos. 522-524/Bang/2025 Page 21 of 22 merely an unsubstantiated allegation. Thus

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 ... /Bang/2025 Page 20 of 22 23. Generally, it is the duty of the person who alleges non application of mind of authority, to prove it with reasonable inconsistencies there in, otherwise ' non application of mind" is ITA Nos. 522-524/Bang/2025 Page 21 of 22 merely an unsubstantiated allegation. Thus

Arcoy Industries (India) Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 427/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “ए“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ A ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद