“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

Zyka Merchandise Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT Central Circle -2, Bhopal

ITA 562/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

facts or was against the principles of natural justice was not sufficient unless supported by cogent material. The learned CIT(A) further examined the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment and noted that the assessee was found to be part of a group of companies linked with Shri Sharad Darak

Jayganga Exim India Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Bhopal

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

Shree Vagad Visha Oswal Chovisi Mahajan Charitable Trust, Malad East vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemp)-II(2) Mumbai, Cumballa Hills

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5854/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishshree Vagad Visha Oswal Chovisi Assistant Director Of Income Tax-Ii(2), Mahajan Charitable, Mumbai 103, 1St Floor, Shree Parimal, Daftary Road, Malad East, Vs. Mumbai - 400097

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Chheda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 147Section 147(3)Section 148

though he grant partial relief to the assessee on merits. 5. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee drew our attention to the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of assessment copy of which is placed at page no. 34 of the paper book. He submitted ... reasons recorded, the income escaping assessment was an amount of Rs.73,29,684/- representing cash deposits in Saving Bank Account with Cosmos Cooperative Bank Ltd., Malad Branch. He submitted, the reasons recorded itself indicate that the cash was deposited on 3 Shree Vagad Visha Oswal Chovisi Mahajan Charitable Trust

Balaram Nama Gaikwad, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 5129/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 148Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 69Section 69A

C.I.T (A) has erred in approving the action of the learned AO of issuing Notice U/s 148 dated 26-3-2019 without giving Reasons recorded before the issue of Notice and copy of approval of Joint CIT Range-3, Kalyan which is bad in law. 4. On the facts

Balaram Nama Gaikwad, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 5128/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 148Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 69Section 69A

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Power Gujarat Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4353/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 254

Assessee-Group (Essar Group) of Companies through Global Supplies FZE UAE from various equipment manufacturer located in different countries. The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded noted that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigated the matter and back-to- back invoices of goods purchased by SR Group Companies from suppliers

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Power Gujarat Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4352/MUM/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 254

Pramukh Metal Quarry, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara

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

ITA 394/AHD/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kinjal Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

Fact the upholding the Reopening of the Assessment u/s.148 of the Act though the Assessing Officer while issuing notice u/s. 148 and Reasons Recorded for Reopening has not taken mandatory permission of Pr. CIT/CIT u/s.151 of the Act and he has also not supplied to the Appellant copy of such ... Appellant submits that CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Order of the AO since there is a vast and clear-cut variation between Reasons Recorded and the Assessment Order and in view of binding judgement of Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel vs. ACIT

Anil Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-26, Jhandewalan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

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

mechanical manner and no independent application of mind as he has acted on the borrowed satisfaction. He drew our attention to the copy of reasons recorded which are available at Pages 24 & 25 of the PB wherein at Column 9 of the Performa for approval, against the query “section under ... valid proceedings. The Ld. Sr. DR further submits that from the perusal of the approval given and the reasons recorded it could be seen that due process of law was followed and, therefore, he prayed for the confirmation of the initiation of reopening of the case and requested that action

Late Shri Duleechanda Through Legal Representative Shri Rajendra Chaudhary, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1353/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 120Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250

counsel for the assessee further submitted that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 and reasons recorded for reopening was under the status of an individual. However, the assessment order was passed under the status of an AOP. Therefore, the assessment order

Horizon Buildmart Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Faridabad

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

ITA 1250/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalhorizon Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Cit, C-131, Ground Floor, Block-C, Central Circle-Ii, Sushant Shopping Arcade, Vs. Faridabad, Sushant Lok-1, Haryana-121001. Gurgaon-122002. Pan-Aacch4582P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri S.S. Nagar, Ca Assessee By Department By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2026 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)-3, Gurgaon (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 27.01.2025 In Appeal No.10581/Cit(A) Ggn-3/2018-19 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Dated 28.12.2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2011 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.54,833/-. The Ao Had Information That Assessee Received Loan Horizon Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO without considering the fact that reasons recorded u/s 148 of the Act do not meet the requirement of law hence completely vague and untenable. 6.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances ... reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 6. Before us, ld. AR for the assessee submits that from the perusal of the reasons recorded, which are available at PB pages 15 to 19, it could be seen that AO simply reproduced the information received from Investigation Wing, Faridabad

Balu Vithal Pawale, Pune vs. ITO WD- 2(4), Pune

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

ITA 2869/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2869/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Balu Vithal Pawale, V Assessing Officer, Village-Kasarsai, S National Faceless Taluka-Mulsi, Assessment Centre, Dist-Pune – 410506. Delhi Pan:Bfcpp7170L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 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.2017-18 Dated 16.10.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 27.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 144BSection 147rSection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

Shri Shripal Vora at Bhavnagar, recorded under section 131 of the Act, and all other documents and material, which form the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. After furnishing all these documents to the Petitioner, the Assessing Officer

M/S. Jagmag Mercantiles Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 709/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

assessment proceedings which has resulted into the escapement of income and not otherwise. The ld. AR brought to our notice the copy of reason recorded which is available at page no.60 and 61 of the Paper Book and we find that in the reasons recorded the ld. AO has simply

M/S. Jagmag Mercantiles Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 708/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

Subir Kumar Ghosh, New Town vs. ITO, Ward 42(1), Murshidabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2147/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2147/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Subir Kumar Ghosh, Vs Ito Ward-42(1), Murshidabad Flat No.G-303, Block-G, Rail Vihar, New Town, Action Area 1A, Rajarhat North 24 Parganas, Wb-700163 Pan No. :Adlpg 1306 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Thard, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Thard, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. The Ld.AR drew my attention to the reasons recorded along with the sanctions from pages 01 to 06 of paper book which reads as follows:- 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. It was submission that ... property for Rs.70,00,000/- including the registration charges of approximately Rs.4,00,000/- was paid subsequently. It was submission that in the reasons recorded the AO has mentioned that the assessee has sold property, reasons recorded are on the presumption that the assessee has sold the property

Ashish N. Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6713/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarashish N. Gupta Vs. Ito, Ward 41(4)(1) 1501, Anmol Enclave Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc S.V Road, Goregoan, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 062. Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aazpg7658K (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessment order was passed on 30.12.2018. A summary of the same is as follows: 1. Copy of reason recorded provided on 24.08.2018 2. Objection filed by the appellant vide letter dated 03/09/2018 on 05.09.2018 3. Disposal of objection filed by appellant 14.12.2018 4. Assessment order passed on 30.12.2018 Therefore ... before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records we noticed that in the present case the copy of reasons recorded were provided to 5 Ashish N. Gupta, Mumbai the assessee regarding which assessee had filed objections. The details and the dates with regard

Sanjay Kumar vs. DCIT Circle-67(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5765/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 147Section 151

ACIT for A.Y. 2011-12, wherein on identical facts and circumstances of the matter, the undated approval by the PCIT and even the reasons recorded on the basis of which approval under Section 151 was taken, being undated the entire proceeding has been quashed. 3 5. Ld. DR at this

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Al-Arsh Exports Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 227/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2014-15] Acit, Central Circle, Al-Arsh Exports Pvt Ltd., Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, 30, Bazar Lane, Cgo Complex-1, Vs C.P. Bengali Market, Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad, New Delhi-110001 Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan Aalca5543N Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.14/Del/2024 [In Ita No.227/Del/2024] [Assessment Year:2014-15] Al-Arsh Exports Pvt Ltd., Acit, Central Circle, Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, 30, Bazar Lane, C.P. Bengali Market, Vs Cgo Complex-1, New Delhi-110001 Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan Aalca5543N Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, Cit(Dr) Assessee By Shri Swaran Singh, Ca & Shri Vipan Kundra, Ca Date Of Hearing 15.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.01.2026

Section 120(4)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 68

appellant company filed Return of Income on 03.04.2018 showing total income at Rs.32,32,700/- and requested the A.O. to provide reasons recorded for initiating the proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Reasons recorded under section 147 was provided to the appellant company inter alia revealed that

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6016/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

treated to have been filed in compliance with the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee further sought for reasons recorded by the authorities, which was duly supplied. The assessee raised objection which was disposed of on 15.07.2014. The copy of share application form, copy of bank statement ... judicial forums. 6. The Ld. AR Shri S.K. Gupta, appearing for the assessee, also argued on the next legal ground submitting that as the reasons recorded was never supplied to the assessee, the satisfaction by the approving authority could not be verified and, therefore, the reasons recorded is incomplete

Jaipal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 2(5), Gurgaon

The Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 3279/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandrajaipal V Ito C/O. Kunal Aggarwal & S Ward 2(5) Associates, 226, Jmd Megapolis, Gurgaon. Haryana 2Nd Floor, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon. Haryana Pan: Alapj3014C Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 Order

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 44ASection 54BSection 54F

income in the hands of the appellant. 4.4 AR of the appellant vide written submissions dated 22/08/2017 submitted as under:- 4 Jaipal Vs. ITO "Reason recorded by the Ld. AO u/s 148 of the Act:- The case was reopened on the basis of cash deposit exceeding ... S.148] Just as the revenue cannot improve upon its case for reopening before the Court but must stand or fall by the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, the same test would be applicable in case of an assessee i.e. it must stand or fall by its objection