← 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

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 425/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

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

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 424/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

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

Mahak Doshi Legal Heir of Late Aditya Doshi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

there is no live link between the information received and the reasons to believe and can only a case of borrowed satisfaction and non application of mind to the information received. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment is not permissible on the basis of such reasons. We note that

Trinity Enclave P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1728/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: demonetisation period.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

when confronted with the issue could controvert the arguments of the Ld. AR. Thus, we note that there was complete and total non application of mind by the AO. Therefore, we are inclined to quash the notice u/s 148 of the Act as well as the consequent assessment framed

Classic Share & Stock Broking Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4962/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

whether it is for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment thereof, and as such, the notice suffers from the virus of non-application of mind and hence, the impugned order of the CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty is not tenable in law. The appellants crave leave ... whether it was for furnishing of Inaccurate particulars of income or Concealment thereof, as such the notice suffers from the virus of non application of mind and therefore impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty is not tenable in the eyes

Tarun Kumar Sahay(HUF), Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3370/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Tarun Kumar Sahay (Huf) Vs Pr. Cit (Central), 171, First Floor, Cycle Market, Delhi-3 Jhandewalan Extn., Delhi-110055. Pan-Aacht1105P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. & Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Sita Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .12.2025

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

initio, as the approval under Section 153D was granted in a mechanical manner, with multiple approvals issued in a single day, evidencing complete non application of mind and vitiating the entire proceedings. 4. That the PCIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act without examining

Alka Agarwal, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3369/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Alka Agarwal Vs Pr. Cit (Central), 56, Sfs Flats, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-3 Phase-Iv, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aajpa1281C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. & Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Sita Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 69Section 69A

approval under Section 153D was granted in a mechanical manner, with multiple (105) approvals issued in a single day, evidencing complete non application of mind and vitiating the entire proceedings. 4. That the PCIT erred in initiating proceedings under Section 263 of the Act solely on the basis

Mitchell Wankhar, Shillong vs. ITO W-2, Shillong

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

ITA 275/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 4Section 44ASection 69A

your appellant to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271A and 271B when no income was assessed as Profit from Business or Profession. This indicates non application of mind by Ld. AO as in the same order he has treated the sums as unexplained u/s.69A and also invoked the provisions applicable ... your appellant to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271A and 271B when no income was assessed as Profit from Business or Profession. This indicates non application of mind by Ld. AO as in the same order he has treated the sums as unexplained money u/s.69Aand also invoked the provisions applicable

Mitchell Wankhar, Shillong vs. ITO W-2, Shillong

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

ITA 274/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 4Section 44ASection 69A

your appellant to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271A and 271B when no income was assessed as Profit from Business or Profession. This indicates non application of mind by Ld. AO as in the same order he has treated the sums as unexplained u/s.69A and also invoked the provisions applicable ... your appellant to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271A and 271B when no income was assessed as Profit from Business or Profession. This indicates non application of mind by Ld. AO as in the same order he has treated the sums as unexplained money u/s.69Aand also invoked the provisions applicable

Rolon Seals International, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 947/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.947/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Rolon Seals International, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 063. Vs. Ward-11(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aarfr2216G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: G Saratha, Sr. AR
Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Commissioner (Appeals), which are not applicable to the present assessment year is bad in law and clearly shows non application of mind. 4. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have considered and appreciated the written submissions placed on the record by the Appellant along with supporting material 3 ITA.No

Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5790/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankareverest Kanto Cylinder V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr.DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)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 ... 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

Aruna Jain, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6066/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 68

necessary while granting the approval under the provisions of section 153D of the Act 6.10 Our view is further fortified about the non application of mind by the ld. additional Commissioner of income tax while granting the approval under Section 153D of the Act by the fact that ... impugned order are extracted hereafter. 17.1 However, in the present case, we have no hesitation in stating that there is complete non-application of mind by the Leamed Addl. CIT before granting the approval. Had there been application of mind, he would not have approved the draft assessment order, where

Swami Darshanand Institute of Management and Technology, Haridwar vs. ITO, W-1(3)(1), Haridwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 129/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalswami Darshanand Institute Of Income Tax Officer, Management & Technology, Ward-1(3)(1), Gurukul Mahavidyalaya, Vs. Haridwar. P.O. Gurukul Kangi, Jwalpur, Haridwar-249407. Pan:Aalas6789G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shalil Agarwal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Salies Gupta, Adv. & Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. Department By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Cit(A) In Short) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 19.05.2025 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Society Engaged In Imparting Education. The Ao Based On The Information That Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.93,10,000/- In The Saving Bank Account Maintained With A Central Bank Of India Which Is Not Declared & Thus Case Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, Submissions Were Made By The Assessee Wherein It Is Claimed That This Account Pertained To Other Society & All The Deposits Are Duly

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

issued at the behest of superior authority, further, there were many factual and legal inaccuracies in the reasons recorded which also shows total non application of mind by superior authority in granting approval for reopening of assessment, as such, the reassessment proceedings are a mere pretence and deserves

Venkatesh Srinivas, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bengaluru

ITA 245/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharysri Venkatesh Srinivas No.75, 2Nd Floor, 8Th Cross Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560 027 ………. Appellant [Pan: Abcpv8163C]

For Appellant: Sri PranayFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

produced any further evidence or participated in the proceedings thereon and without perusing detailed grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant which reflects non application of mind. The notices were not received by the appellant by way of e-mail or registered post and consequently the Appellant was unaware

DCIT Central Circle -25, Delhi vs. Zeal Impex and Traders Pvt Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 979/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmazeal Impex & Traders Private Vs. Dcit, Cc-25 Limited24, Ashoka Chamber, Jhandewal Extension Pusa Road, 5-B, Rajindra New Delhi – 110055 Park,Delhi – 110008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacz1549C Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Cc-25 Vs. Zeal Impex & Traders Private Room No. 317, 3Rd Floor, E-2, Limited, 24, Ashoka Chamber, Ara Centre, Jhandewal Pusa Road, 5-B, Extension Rajindra Park, New Delhi – 110055 Delhi – 110060 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacz1549C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT, DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

Direct Taxes needs to be adhered to and if same is not then the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act would reflect non application of mind. The relevant part is reproduced below; “16. However, after examining the assessment order, we are of the considered view that

Zeal Impex & Traders Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 667/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmazeal Impex & Traders Private Vs. Dcit, Cc-25 Limited24, Ashoka Chamber, Jhandewal Extension Pusa Road, 5-B, Rajindra New Delhi – 110055 Park,Delhi – 110008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacz1549C Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Cc-25 Vs. Zeal Impex & Traders Private Room No. 317, 3Rd Floor, E-2, Limited, 24, Ashoka Chamber, Ara Centre, Jhandewal Pusa Road, 5-B, Extension Rajindra Park, New Delhi – 110055 Delhi – 110060 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacz1549C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT, DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

Direct Taxes needs to be adhered to and if same is not then the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act would reflect non application of mind. The relevant part is reproduced below; “16. However, after examining the assessment order, we are of the considered view that

Shri Narendra Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 3, Delhi

In the result, the assessees’ appeals are allowed

ITA 253/DEL/2025[2014-15 and Further Year]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025
Section 120Section 127Section 12ASection 143Section 3

provision of Section 12A r.w.s 12AA and 12AB(4) of the Act is found to be erroneous, bad in law, whimsical, in non application of mind and thus, unsustainable. 23. Before parting we would like to note that the further direction given by the Ld. PCIT to this effect that

Shakuntalam Educational Society East Delhi, New Delhi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)- 3, Delhi

In the result, the assessees’ appeals are allowed

ITA 252/DEL/2025[2013-14 and Further Years]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025
Section 120Section 127Section 12ASection 143Section 3

provision of Section 12A r.w.s 12AA and 12AB(4) of the Act is found to be erroneous, bad in law, whimsical, in non application of mind and thus, unsustainable. 23. Before parting we would like to note that the further direction given by the Ld. PCIT to this effect that

Adarsh Shiv Shakti Shiksha Samiti, Delhi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 3, Delhi

In the result, the assessees’ appeals are allowed

ITA 218/DEL/2025[2013-14 and further years]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025
Section 120Section 127Section 12ASection 143Section 3

provision of Section 12A r.w.s 12AA and 12AB(4) of the Act is found to be erroneous, bad in law, whimsical, in non application of mind and thus, unsustainable. 23. Before parting we would like to note that the further direction given by the Ld. PCIT to this effect that

Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 3, Delhi

In the result, the assessees’ appeals are allowed

ITA 216/DEL/2025[2012-13 and further year]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025
Section 120Section 127Section 12ASection 143Section 3

provision of Section 12A r.w.s 12AA and 12AB(4) of the Act is found to be erroneous, bad in law, whimsical, in non application of mind and thus, unsustainable. 23. Before parting we would like to note that the further direction given by the Ld. PCIT to this effect that