“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

Lokopayogi Ilakhe and Karnataka Neeravari Nowakarara Pattin Sangh Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 120/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.120/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21 ) Lokopayogi Ilakhe & Vs. Pr.Cit, Karnataka Neerawari C.R.Building, Nawakara Pattinsangn Niymit, Navanagar, 1,Fort, Hubli-580025, Belagavi-590016, Karnataka Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaal1333J (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

society and interest income in the F.Y.2019-20 in lieu of notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and hence there cannot be any non application of mind by the A.O. Whereas the observations of the Pr. CIT are not correct and further if any query is raised in the assessment ... 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

Monika Shekhri Mohalla Devi Asthan Noormahal Jalandhar, Punjab vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Jao the Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Phagwara, Punjab

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

ITA 524/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

that no argument has been advanced regarding the source of cash is wholly misconceived, incorrect and there is complete non application of mind by the Ld. CIT(A) on the detailed submissions filed by the assessee. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal

The Belgaum Manufacturers Co-Op Industrial Estate Ltd, Belagavi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubbali

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

ITA 154/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.154/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) The Belgaum Manufactures Vs. Pr.Cit, Co-Op Industrial Estate C.R.Building, Limited, Navanagar, 10 342/690,Udyambag, Hubli-580025, Belgaum-590008, Karnataka. Karnataka Pan .No.Aaaat7254J (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Pramod Y Vaidya.Ar Revenue By Shri.Captain Pradeep Arya.Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20.08.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Hubli Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Revision Order Passed By The Pr.Cit Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under Bombay Co-Operative

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

F.Y.2019-20 in lieu of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and show cause notice of the A.O. Hence there cannot be any non application of mind by the A.O. Whereas the observations of the Pr. CIT are not correct and further if any query is raised in the assessment ... 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

The Sankeshwar Souhard Credit Sahakari Limited, Sankeshwar vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 118/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.118/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21 ) The Sankeshwar Souhard Vs. Pr.Cit, Credit Sahakari Ltd, C.R.Building, Cts.No.41443/B/234, Navanagar, Near Hanuman Temple, Hubli-580025, Nidasoshi Road, Karnataka Sankeshwar-591313, Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaat8125C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

society and interest income in the F.Y.2019-20 in lieu of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and hence there cannot be any non application of mind by the A.O. Whereas the observations of the Pr. CIT are not correct and further if any query is raised in the assessment ... 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

Spark Gems, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 19(3)(4), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber

ITA 3651/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Blespark Gems Ito, Ward-19(3)(4), Mumbai

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjukta Samantara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44A

anything on record to counter the finding of the ld. CIT (A) and has filed the second appeal raising various grounds mechanically and non application of mind whether assessee actually made any such purchases or not. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.” In backdrop of aforesaid submissions

Shri Basaveshwar Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mudalagi vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 78/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.78/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) Shri Basaveshwar Urban Vs. Pr.Cit, Co_Op Credit Society C.R.Building, Mudalagi, Navanagar, Belagavi-591312, Hubli-580025, Karnataka Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaas6800M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Saidappa Gadadi.Ar Revenue By Shri.Captain Pradeep Arya.Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 14.08.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Hubli Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Revision Order Passed By The Pr.Cit Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society & Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2020-21 On 04.01.2021 Disclosing A Total Income Of

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

society and interest income in the F.Y.2019-20 in lieu of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and hence there cannot be any non application of mind by the A.O. Whereas the observations of the Pr. CIT are not correct and further if any query is raised in the assessment ... 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

Bhandari Associates, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Pune

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

ITA 1227/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada S IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

balance amount of expenditure of Rs.1.76 crores i.e. Rs.2.94 crores less Rs.17.98 lakhs claimed as revenue expenditure would not by itself indicate non application of mind to this issue by the Assessing Officer in view of specific queries made during the assessment proceedings and the Respondent- assessee's response

Chourasiainfratech Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 317/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Y Pranay Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253(3)

safely presumed that the appellant is not interest in pursuing the appeal" and detailed grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant reflecting non application of mind. Further the Appellant was placed ex-parte as the notices of hearing was sent to the Appellant's ex-employee who used to undertake

M/S. Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is

ITA 2415/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshshahi Exports P. Ltd., F-88, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-1, New Delhi Pan No: Aajcs-1175-L बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-8, Jhandewalan, New Delhi Assessee By : S/Shri M.P Rastogi, Shivam Yadav, Deepak Malik, Advocates Department By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तिथि / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा की तिथि / Date Of Pronouncement: : 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: S/Shri M.P Rastogi, Shivam Yadav, Deepak Malik, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 153ASection 153D

Draft Assessment Orders. The Id. Counsel submitted that the manner in which approval has been granted by the JCIT clearly shows non application of mind. The approval has been granted in a mechanical manner. He further placed on record other approvals from the same JCIT dated 27.03.2015, the JCIT ... 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 Learned Addl. CIT before granting the approval. Had there been application of mind, he would not have approved the draft assessment order, where

Ram Kumar Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2676/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

notice under section 143(2) of the Act, was issued on the same day of filing of return income, which shows complete non application of mind on the part of assessing officer and thus, the assessment so framed was without jurisdiction and according all proceedings thereafter are nullity. Additional Ground ... further completion of assessment under section 143(3)/ 147 of the Act was without satisfying the statutory pre- conditions (i.e. with non application of mind, without there being any tangible material and without supplying the copy of reasons recorded) as envisaged in aforesaid section and was without jurisdiction

Sumit Suneja, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 34(1), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 3688/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singha.Yr. : 2011-12 Sumit Suneja, Vs. Acit, Circle 34(1), H-34, Pocket-17, Sector-3, Rithala, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi – 85 (Pan: Aaypg9406A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suregsh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

reopening the assessment which shows that there is complete non-existent provision for reopening the assessment which shows that there is complete non application of mind. It is also noted that the provisions of section 147(a) /147(b) have ceased to be in the statute book from ... mentioning of these incorrect and non-existing sections is clearly a case of non-application of mind by the AO and also by authorities providing sanction u/s. 151 of the Act. Further, it is noted that there is mechanical approval which is undated mentioned at page

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 appellant was never selected for scrutiny proceedings. Thus it a clear non application of mind by an AO and reasons are fallacious. The case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny proceedings and enquiries were conducted from the appellant about land

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

Rsd Containers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1320/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 68

this score also the reassessment proceedings is liable to be quashed. Copy of said judgement is available in case law APB 53-60. Non application of mind by the AO d. From the whole proceedings undertaken in this case it transpires that the ld. AO was having only a piece

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 416/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

above observations"; the original penalty proceedings initiated by order dated 27.12.2005 culminated into the order of penalty dated 25.03.2009 and there was total non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer in such original proceedings inasmuch as he issued the notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271 specifying the charge ... 416/Mum/2025 CO No. 50, 51/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2002-03, 2003-04 Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai from the virus of non-application of mind and hence, the impugned order levying penalty is bad in law and consequently, not tenable. The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances

DCIT(Central Circle)-7(1), Mumbai vs. Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 415/MUM/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

Kk Tourist Home, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 507/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

JCIT has not applied his mind while granting approval. The fact that there are contentious issues in an order does not necessarily indicate non application of mind by an authority. The above logic advanced by the appellant would be flawed and frivolous, as by employing the same, the pronouncements ... Notice u/s 148 was issued by 10.49 p.m. on the same day, it would not mean that there had been non-application of mind. Holding it so would be merely speculative and based on conjecture. Thus, "application of mind" cannot be defined solely on the basis of the amount

M/S Kk Tourist Home, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 506/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Kk Tourist Home, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 505/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Kk Tourist Home, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 504/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D