“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

Citron Infraproject Ltd., Mumbai-400005 vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai-20

ITA 1267/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

southwest Industries Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & Ors present case by the approving authority. He submits that there is no evidence of non-application of mind and to support his case he puts on record report of range head and the AO in the month of January 2023. He supports this ... granted by the approving authority was without application of mind. He submits that the learned authorized representative has failed to show that where non application of mind by the approving authority is. 016. He relied upon the office manual, procedure contained therein and also CBDT instruction number 286/161/2006 – 07 dated

Veena Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 295/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 294/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2016-17) & Ita No. 295/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2017-18) Veena Singh Vs. Acit Flat 5, 2Nd Floor, J-21, Central Circle-25 South Extension Part-1, Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Delhi Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, Pan: Axjps9588H Delhi

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 44ASection 68Section 69A

years. Apparently, the approval has been granted on a dotted line without any availability of reasonable time which firms up the belief towards non application of mind. Besides, the approval Veena Singh Vs. ACIT has been granted in a consolidated manner for all assessment years for which voluminous assessment orders

Veena Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle25, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 294/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 44ASection 68Section 69A

Ashish Sood, Zirakpur vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 747/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 253Section 90

admittedly it consists of two parts i.e; Part A and Part B. We therefore are of the considered view that there is total non application of mind in this regard. We state that Rule 128(9) w.e.f 01/04/2022 reads as under: “ (9) The statement in Form No. 67 referred

Vaishali Babubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 380/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 380/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Vaishali Babubhai Patel, The Principal Commissioner B-201, Vs. Of Income Tax-3, Gala Gardenia Apartments, Ahmedabad. Nr. Safal Parisar, South Bopal, Ahmedabad-380058. Pan: Abdpp0233G

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

this could be a case of money laundering which went undetected due to lack of requisite inquiry into increase of share capital and non application of mind by the AO. 7. In view of the above, I am of the view that the assessment order passed

Kunwar Pal Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, the impugned notice is quashed

ITA 172/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: learned first appellate authority, inter alia, challenging the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act.

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147

consideration is as to whether the reopening which is made based on incorrect assumption of fact and non-application of mind by the Id. AO could be held to be valid. This issue has been addressed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dhiren Anantrai Modi ... October, 2019 disposing petitioner's objections to the re-opening. 2. Petitioner has challenged notice dated 26th March, 2019 on various grounds including non application of mind by the Assessing Officer while issuing notice. 3. We have considered the petition with documents annexed thereto, reply filed by respondent and also

Reena Rakesh Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-26(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2184/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Reena Rakesh Kothari Income Tax Officer 28-A, Kamgar Nagar, Ward 26(2)(5), S.G. Barve Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Kurla (East), Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahlpk7422J Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 10Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

Reena Rakesh Kothari, A.Y. 15-16 the fact that till that time the assessee has not filed any return of income, is non application of mind. He further referred to paragraph number 6 of the reasons recorded wherein it has been stated that assessee is one of such person ... gain. It was stated that when the assessee has not filed any return of income, the averment in the reasons recorded shows absolute non- application of mind by the learned AO. He submitted that the honourable Bombay High Court in case of Prashant Joshi 324 ITR 154 has held that

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

Then, the assessment order, as rightly stated is not based on either incorrect application of law or incorrect application of facts or non application of mind on the part of the AO. There is nothing on record to show that the income assessed has not been assessed in accordance with ... Kashi Nath & Co. 16.4 The following decisions hold that a revisional order cannot be passed unless there is total non-application of mind by the AO : i) 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii) 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7755/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

Assessing Officer has failed to apply his mind to such facts and on this premise also the reasons recorded are vitiated by the non application of mind. 6.4 Joining the point in issue, the ld. DR strongly raised its objection to such line of contention and pointed out the reasons

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7754/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

S K Bhansali & Associates, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1320/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Pune13 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292CSection 69B

assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147, the Id. A.O. had initiated the penalty proceedings for both the limbs which clearly indicates non application of mind on the part of the Id. A.O and hence, in the absence of proper satisfaction being recorded by the Id. A.O., the penalty order passed

Edisons Infrapower Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Range -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1208/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleedisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. Cit, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.Cit, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aabce0473D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

called for the information on the interest expenses, loans and advances and the method of accounting fallowed and there cannot be any non application of mind by the A.O. We find that the A.O has considered one of the possible views based on the information and it is not necessary ... 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

Essel Corporate Resources Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1207/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

G.J. Holding Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1171/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1171/Chandi/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 G.J. Holding Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Ludhiana C/O G.S. Auto International Limited, G.S. Estate, G.T. Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacg6664K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri P.K. Goel & Sunil Arora, C.As राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2024 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.07.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana[Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following 2. Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Goel & Sunil Arora, C.AsFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

DDIT,held that “the glaring mistakes in the proforma for approval is the valid ground forquashing the assessment on the premise of non-application of mind by all theauthorities involved in the process of recording reasons and providingsatisfaction U/s. 151 of the Act". Similarposition of law has been upheld ... Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Limited 395 ITR677 held that "Mere reliance on the information received without having acted thereon beforerecording the reasons, showing non application of mind on the part of A.0., isunsustainable in law. Hon'ble Delhi HC in PCIT Vs. G & G Pharma 384 ITR 147 held “that reopening

The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhopal vs. DB Power Ltd, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 73/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Db Power Limited, Acit, Central Circle-1, बनाम/ Office Block, 1A, Bhopal Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit, Central Circle-1, M/S Db Power Limited, बनाम/ Bhopal Office Block, 1A, Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(viib)Section 69C

Commissioner of Income Tax, the notice issued is bad in law. Of course, Dr. Shivram also submitted that the sanction granted itself indicates non application of mind but he did not wish to elaborate on that since the Court, after considering the documents annexed to the petition, felt that

DB Power Ltd, Bhopal vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 68/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(viib)Section 69C

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Vijay Granimarmo Private Limited, Naya Ghar Gulab Bari Ajmer

In the result of the cross objection of the assessee in CO No

ITA 648/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H)

Section 143(3)

draft assessment order was approved by the Addl. CIT on the same day. The appellant has advanced this argument without any evidence of non application of mind by the Addl. CIT. The argument seems to be only on the basis of same day approval. This argument of the appellant ... 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

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Vijay Granimarmo Private Limited, Naya Ghar Gulab Bari Ajmer

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

ITA 647/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H)

Section 143(3)