← All Phrases

“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

Adnan Rahmat, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 674/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.674/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Adnan Rahmat, Vs Ito Ward-30(1), Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Pan No. :Adepr 1602 G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Reasons As Mentioned By The Ao In Page 1 Of The Assessment Order Did Not Having Live Link To The Actual Issue, Insofar As This Was The Case Of Joint Development Agreement & No Income Could Be Assessed In The Hands Of The Assessee On The Basis Of Such Joint Development Agreement Until The Completion Of The Development Of The Project. 3. At This Point, It Was Requested To The Ld. Ar To Provide The Reasons Recorded. It Was Submitted That The Revenue Has Not Provided The Same. 4. Ld. Sr. Dr Also Submitted That He Does Not Have Immediately Copy Of The Reasons Recorded.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR

agreement until the completion of the development of the project. 3. At this point, it was requested to the ld. AR to provide the reasons recorded. It was submitted that the revenue has not provided the same. 4. Ld. Sr. DR also submitted that he does not have immediately copy ... reasons recorded. 2 5. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that one of the grounds raised before the ld. CIT(A) is as to whether reasons recorded has not been given to the assessee. This being so, in the interest of justice, this issues

M/S. Aryan Share and Stock Brockers Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2115/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2115/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aryan Share & Stock Brokers V. Ito Corp Ward-1, Limited., Itd, M G Road, No. 07, 07Th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, 2Nd Floor, Shreeji Metropolis, Chennai-600034 Aminjikarai, Chennai-600030 Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu [Pan:Aadca 1233 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y Sridhar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2026

For Appellant: Mr. Y Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 69A

facts that the Id AO has erred both in law and on facts in making reassessment u/s 147 of the Act as the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment does not meet the requirement of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Id CIT (A) ought ... order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B on the following grounds as mentioned below: - (a) Reason to believe absence: From a mere perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening (Page 42 of Paper Book Index), it is clear that the Assessing Officer has simply stated that the assessee company has incurred