“reasons recorded”

ReassessmentSection 148Section 14813,127 judgments

The decision most relied on for reasons recorded is Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332), cited in 695 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reasons recorded

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court

695

citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.

82 ITR 50 · 1971 · Supreme Court

382

citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.

354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court

366

citing judgments

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.

384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court

274

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if initiated based on documents already available on record without fresh tangible material, and if the sanction under section 151 is accorded mechanically, indicating non-application of mind.

M/s Sahara India (Farms) v. CIT & Anr.

300 ITR 403 · 2008 · Supreme Court

268

citing judgments

The requirement of statutory prior approval by a high-ranking authority, even if administrative, serves as an in-built protection against arbitrary exercise of power by the Assessing Officer. While such approval need not record elaborate reasoning, the approving authority has a heavy duty to ensure it is not an empty ritual, fulfilling its purpose of supervisory control.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT

308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court

248

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

367 ITR 112 · 2014 · High Court

225

citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a specific satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the person searched, recorded prior to initiating proceedings, is a jurisdictional prerequisite, rendering its absence void. The approval function under Section 153D is administrative and does not require elaborate reasoning.

Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

329 ITR 110 · 2010 · High Court

217

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the Assessing Officer records satisfaction based on borrowed satisfaction or information without independently applying their mind and forming their own 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. The AO must arrive at an independent conclusion, not merely act on a report from an investigation wing without due diligence.

Judgments citing reasons recorded

Business India Publications Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5734/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarbusiness India Publications Vs Income Tax Officer Limited. Income Tax Office-3(1)(2) Room 21 Framroz Court, 4Th Floor, No.666 Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Marine Drive, Next To Sea Mumbai-400020 Green Hotel, Maharashtra- 400020 Pan:Aaacb4739Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr.Ar)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr.AR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

case and in law, the Appellant submits that the Ld. Assessing Officer has not obtained satisfaction of the prescribed authority on the reasons recorded by him, as required under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, the reassessment notice issued under Sec.148 of the Income ... case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer has nowhere disposed of the objections dated 26.11.2018 filed by the appellant to the reasons recorded for reopening, before proceeding with the reassessment proceedings and hence the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have annulled the reassessment order on the ground that

Bhavika Bhuwalka, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(2), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8258/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Bhavika Bhuwalka Vs. Ito C055, Iind Floor, Preet Ward-5 (1) (2) Vihar, Delhi Noida Pan No. Amnpb8209R Appellant Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69

justified in upholding the validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act even though same was issued without recording proper reasons. 2.2 That the reasons recorded being vague, factually incorrect, without application of mind and in the absence of the any case of escapement of income ... relevant to the A.Y. 2013- 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that even according to the reasons recorded the assessee had only purchased script called Global Capital Market P. Ltd. for an amount of Rs.5,40,000/- and the assessee had never sold these shares during

P R Kumar Capital Private Limited, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-28, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Department of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5248/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR

Section 127Section 132Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)Section 250Section 28

ACIT reported in 476 ITR 389. Copies of notice under Section 148 dated 16.01.2023 for AY 2012-13 to 2015-16 along with Reasons recorded and approval of specified authority; Page 1 to 19 of PB. Copy of notice under Section 148 dated 16.01.2023 for AY 2013- 14 along with ... Reasons recorded and approval of specified authority; Page 5-9 of PB. Copy of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Smart Chip (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 476 ITR 389. Page 20-30 of PB. - 7. From examination of record in light

Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited, New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the impugned reassessment order is quashed

ITA 2867/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Vs. Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax (Appeals)-26, B-310, Som Datt Delhi Chambers-1, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd 7720 L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Vohra, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154

made to the book profits. 2.3 Subsequently, Assessing Officer issued notice dated 31.03.2018 u/s. 148 of the Act, on the basis of the reasons recorded. Copy of which is placed in paper book at Page No.2-5. The reassessment proceedings culminated in passing of reassessment order dated 19.12.2018, wherein Assessing Officer

Bindu Dharmesh Bhatt, Vadodara vs. Asstt.CIT., Circle-1(3), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 618/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 274

assessee. 5. As regards ground no. 1 relating to reopening u/s. 147, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the addition is not based on the reasons recorded for reopening. The reasons for reopening was only for two counts, firstly in respect of that the assessee purchased commodity scrip ... contention of the assessee is that assessment was reopened merely on the suspicion and the addition was not made on the basis of reasons recorded while reopening. The amount mentioned on Darpan Commosales via KTULP Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 5,99,250/- but the addition is made

Rita Das, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1389/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1388 & 1389/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) Rita Das, Vs Acit, Cc-23 (1), Hooghly C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata,Wb-700001 Pan No. :Arhpd 6149 D

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Sr. DR

that there was clearly non-application of mind and non-verification of the information which has been provided to the Assessing Officer, insofar as reasons recorded by the AO in his communication sent for the approval for the reopening was in verbatim to the information provided by the investigation wing ... conclusions and there is no link between the information made available to the AO and the formation of believe by the Assessing Officer. The reasons recorded and the consequential reopening is liable to be quashed. The Ld.AR further drew our attention to the approval granted by the Ld. PCIT wherein

Rita Das, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1388/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Sr. DR

Jet Speed Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7537/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43C

which the original notice u/s. 148 dated 29.07 2022 was issued 1.5. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not upholding the reasons recorded for opening of assessment amount to reason to suspect and do not amount to reason to believe and the said reason do not constitute belief ... Notice u/s 148 and pursuant Assessment order passed u/s. 147 rws. 1448 of the Act as invalid and void ab initio as the reason recorded for re-opening the assessment is borrowed satisfaction and not proper satisfaction which is to be made by the Ld. AD before issue of Notice

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4819/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 35D

hereby quashed and set aside.” 7. The Ld. AR advanced his argument on basis of the legal issue for reasons recorded by the Ld. AO on basis of mere change of opinion. The issue is squarely dealt by the Ld. CIT(A) and the observations ... submission filed by the appellant. In this case, original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 23.04.2021. I find from the reasons recorded by the AO, the case of the appellant was reopened u/s 147 on the basis of audit objection. The appellant has contended that there

Amit Kumar Bajaj, Mumbai vs. DCIT-24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1309/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaramit Kumar Bajaj Dcit-24(1), A-3001, Omkar, Off Dr. Piramal Chambers, Annie Besant Road, Near Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai- Neelam Centre, Hanuman 400 012 Nagar, Worli, Maharashtra – 400 030 Pan/Gir No. Afrpb3442B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 148, the assessee requested that the original return of income filed earlier be treated as the return filed in response to such notice. Reasons recorded for reopening were furnished to the assessee. The assessee filed objections, which were disposed of by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, notice under section

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

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 there being any tangible material whatsoever and fishing ... case laws cited. 7. For the purpose of deciding the Additional Ground relating to non application of mind by the AO in the reasons recorded, as the same recorded on the basis of information received from the ADIT (Inv.), without there being any tangible material whatsoever and fishing and roving

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

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Nilesh Todi, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1807/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

decision to sell them when they were increased multiple times", which looks to be without any application of mind and quite contrary to the reasons recorded by the A.O himself that the appellant has booked bogus Short Term Loss on the sale of the same scrip. As per the details

Jasmine Zubin Shroff, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2380/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2380/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs.Jasmine Zubin Shroff V The Income Tax (Through Legal Heir Zubin K S Officer, Shroff), Ward-7(1), Pune. 826/C No.5, Anklesharia Blocks, Dastur Meher Road, Camp, Pune - 411001. Pan:Basps7144E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B C Malakar Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe - Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Legal Heir Of Late Jasmine Z. Shroff 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.2012-13 Dated 19.12.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The

Section 144Section 250

served on assessee. Copy of the statement of Shri Subahukirit Shah was never provided to Assessee, no cross-examination was provided. Even in the reasons recorded, there is no specific reference to the Answers given in the statement. The reasons are vague and hence, bad in law. 2.1 On merits ... Submission of ld.DR : 4. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). Ld.DR filed copy of the reasons recorded by ITO for reopening. Findings and Analysis: 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, to understand

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Pune vs. Sachin Motilal Mutha, Pune

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2211/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2211/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Vs Sachin Motilal Mutha, Officer, H-4, Kalyan Co. Op. Hsg. Sco., Ward-11(1), Pune. Shankarsheth Road, Mahatma Phule Peth, Pune – 411004. Pan: Ahdpm2649F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Sachin Motilal Mutha (Assessee) Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue 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.2018-19 Dated 21.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144Bof The Act, Dated 25.03.2023. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

order of ld.CIT(A). Assessee also submitted that reopening is bad in law, as there was no material for reopening. Ld.AR submitted that reasons recorded for reopening contains incorrect facts. This explains that notice u/s.148 was issued on incorrect facts, hence it is bad in law. 3 ITA No.2211/PUN/2025 ... Ld.CIT(A). 7. Revenue has not brought on record any evidence about role of Vibrant Securities which AO has mentioned in the Reasons recorded for reopening and also in the Assessment Order. Assessee has proved before ld.CIT(A) that Vibrant Securities have no connection to assessee. 7.1 Therefore

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Golden Goenka Credit Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, were hold that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT-A. " 7. For the reasons recorded above, no question of law muchless substantial questions arises in this appeal. It stands meritless and accordingly dismissed. 8 Going over the above discussion

Jaimin Gautam Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7577/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The case was re- opened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 13.02.2015. The reasons recorded for reopening is at page 2 of the assessment order wherein it is mentioned that the assessee has taken accommodation entries of unsecured loans of Rs.3

Jaimin Gautam Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT, Circle 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7576/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

Jaimin Gautam Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7575/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

Jaimin Gautam Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7574/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68