“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

Bechtel Limited, London vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1816/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

draft assessment order under Section 144C (1) of the Act and the said final assessment order has been held by this Court, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, to be invalid. 44. The other plea of the Revenue that the Petitioners ought to have challenged the final assessment order before

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Ishana Projects Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1775/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1774 & 1775/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Vs Ishana Projects Private Limited, Kolkata 4, Block 1 Unit 7(O), Chowringhee Lane, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 Pan No. :Aahcm 4897 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Rastogi, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subrata Aich, Jcit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Kolkata-27, Both Dated 15.04.2025 For The Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Both Appeals Of The Revenue Are Filed Belatedly By 05 Days Each. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavit In Both The Appeals Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Considering Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit, We Condone The Delay Of 05 Days Each In Both The Appeals Of The Revenue & Both The Appeals Are Admitted For Hearing. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Sr.Dr That The Assessee Being Energy Commodity Private Limited Was Involved In Sale Of Bogus Investments. It Was Submission That Consequently Reopening Had Been Done By Issuance Of Notice 148 Of The Act On 10/01/2024 & The Reasons Were Recorded & In The Assessee’S Paper Book At Pages 146 To 167 Which Reads As Follows:-

For Respondent: Shri Subrata Aich, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

liable to be upheld. 7. We have considered the rival submission. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the reasons recorded has been issued in the case Energy Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The PAN Number referred to in the notice issued u/s.148 ... that M/s Energy Commodities Pvt Ltd. has already been merged/amalgamated with M/s Ishana Projects Pvt. Ltd and this has also categorically mentioned in the reasons recorded. It was no more available with the AO to issue a notice in the case of an amalgamated company as the said company

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Ishana Projects Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1774/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri Subrata Aich, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

Shri Vipul Bansal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground on merits raised by\nthe assessee on this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5628/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 69C

reason\nof failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all\nmaterial facts.\n32. On a careful perusal of the reasons recorded, we find that\nthe reopening was not based on a mere reappraisal of the\nmaterial already on record, but was founded on specific ... escaped assessment. The sufficiency or\ncorrectness of such belief is not to be examined at that stage. In\nthe present case, the reasons recorded demonstrate a live link\nbetween the information received from the Investigation Wing and\nthe belief formed by the Assessing Officer regarding escapement\nof income

Shri Sanjay Haresh Mulchandani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee succeeds in the present appeal

ITA 4751/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Haresh The Income Tax Officer, Mulchandani Ward, 19 (3) (1), 4-C Ajanta Apartments, M L Vs. Piramal Chamber, Dhanukar Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400013. Mumbai – 40026 Pan – Aadpm 3393 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Harsh Kapadia & Nitin Khinchi, Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Along With His Uncle Had Purchased A Flat In Iscon Platinum, Ahmedabad On A Consideration Of Rs. 59,30,000/- Through Cheques. Subsequently, Search Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted By The Investigation Wing, In The Case Of Jp Iscon

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia & Nitin KhinchiFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

paid cash amounting to Rs.19.65 lakhs is absolutely without any basis and corroborative evidences. The Counsel for the assessee firstly submitted that in the reasons recorded for reopening the case of the assessee, the name of the assessee is nowhere appearing in the data on the basis of which

Rekha Kishore Shah (Legal Heir of Kishor Dhirajlal Shah ), Mumbai vs. ACIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4409/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Malav P. ShethFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

disposed off the specific objections raised (Year of purchase & ownership of the three Galas) by the appellant that the reasons for alleged against reasons recorded for reopening while passing order u/s 148A(d). Thus the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that this being in gross violation

Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

ITA 1518/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Manish Kumar Kanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 1Section 92CSection 92C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, Delhi vs. Ms Elco Global Ventures LLP, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 749/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. M/S. Elcom Global Ventures Circle-28(1), Llp, Delhi C-23, Greater Kailash, Enclave Part-1, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadfe3216H Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Goel, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

response to notice under section 148 of the Act on 23-09-2019 declaring total income of Rs Nil and requested for providing the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The Learned AO duly provided the reasons for reopening vide letter dated 3-10-2019 to the assessee. The reopening

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 344/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

prior approval of the competent authority, i.e., PCIT-2, Agra under section 151 of the Act. Based on such information available as per the reasons recorded and subsequent information received from ADIT (Inv.) Unit-3, Kolkata vide letter dated 08.03.2019, the ld. Assessing Officer observed that the appellant had received ... section 148 of the Act beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without 3 demonstrating in the reasons recorded as to what material facts the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly necessary for assessment, as mandatorily required by Ist proviso to section

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 343/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

Umaya Developers Private Limited, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result the orders of the Ld

ITA 1477/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate

Section 131Section 132Section 143Section 153CSection 153DSection 270A

panchnama dated 09.02.2018 the above documents are loose sheets comprising of the documents.Therefore,the above documents related to the Assessee and therefore the reasons recorded in the satisfaction note and the materials used in making addition as per paragraph No. 5.1 of the Assessment Order are all based

Umaya Developers Private Limited, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result the orders of the Ld

ITA 1476/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate

Section 131Section 132Section 143Section 153CSection 153DSection 270A

Prem Sagar Chopra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 4538/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Prem Sagar Chopra (Since Ito - 16(1)(3) Mumbai, Deceased) Through Neelam Prem Vs Room No. 438, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sagar Chopra (Wife), Road, Churchgate, Sagar Villa Road No. 12A, Jvpd Mumbai – 400020. Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400049. [Pan No. Aapps2469E] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

notice under section 148, the assessee filed his return of income on 24th December 2021. The assessee also objected to the reopening. The reasons recorded were not supplied to the assessee. The details asked by assessing officer were already provided during the original assessment. The region is recorded

Inder Mohan Thapar, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 32(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7311/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7311/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2011-12) Inder Mohan Thapar, Farm No. 44, Main Jaunapur Mandi Road, Jaunapur, Delhi 110047 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Adcpt-9376-R बिाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, Minto Road, Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Satyajeet Goel, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Keshav Kishor Anand, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’) Dated 26.09.2025, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Shri Satyajeet Goel, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Is A Salaried Employee & Had Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Income From Salary & House Property On 04.02.2012 For Ay 2011-12. The Assessment For Ay 2011-12In The Case Of Assessee Was Reopened & Notice U/S.148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 28.03.2018 Was Issued To The Assessee. The Reasons For Reopening Are At Page 2 Of The Paper Book. A Perusal

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Keshav Kishor Anand, Sr. DR

Section 148

reopening I find the submissions of the assessee are devoid of any merit. The assessee was holding two PANs. As is apparent from the reasons recorded for reopening, the assessee got the credit card issued on the basis of PAN AAZPT 6665 P, whereas, the assessee had filed return

DCIT, Central Circle 3, New Delhi vs. Ameeta Mehra, New Delhi

The Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3568/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

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

Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Aashish DCIT Vs. Ameeta Mehra Agarwal (supra), the copy of the reasons recorded served on the Assessee on 20/05/2022, wherein it was alleged in the reasons recorded that the Assessee had unexplained credit in the bank account amounting ... which could not be explained by the Assessee before the Investigating Wing with the help of documentary evidences one more reason mentioned in the reasons recording was the current banking account maintained with BNB Paribas Bank. 3. After considering the objection filed by the Assessee, A.O. passed order u/s 148A

Ratori Maa Trading P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4485/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandraratori Maa Trading P. Ltd. Vs Ito M-98, 2Nd Floor, Jagat Ward -21(1) Rampark, Laxmi Nagar, New C. R. Building, New Delhi Delhipan: Aaecr0612A Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi Dated

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

entitled to take all the points before the assessing authority. The appeals are dismissed. Titere will be no order as to costs." 5.2. The reasons recorded show that AO had tangible material by way of specific transactions, identifying the parties to the transactions, bank account details etc. typical of entry ... Assessing Officer, the A.O. undoubtedly had every reason to come to a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment. Regarding the sufficiency of reasons recorded, the Delhi High Court in the case of AGR Investment Ltd. (197 Taxman 177), have decided the matter in favour of revenue and declined

Kanubhai Ramdas Patel(Prop. of Gujarat Agro Base Company), Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1207/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Kanubhai Ramdas Patel The Ito, Ward- Prop: Gujarat Agro Base Company Vs 5(2)(5), Vejalpur C-1/70, Gidc Ahmedabad. Phase-Ii, Dediyasan Mehsana 384 002. Pan: Agzpp 2264 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate : Revenue By Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24 /12/2025

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 151Section 250

ought to have been held that entire re- opening u/s 147 of the Act is invalid and void ab initio as the reasons recorded and approval u/s 151 of the Act is given on erroneous and factually wrong facts. (3) The learned NFAC has grievously erred in not granting sufficient ... that as regards Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3, the entire reopening u/s 147 of the Act is invalid and void ab initio, as the reasons recorded and approval given were u/s 151 of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the approval is on commodity trading transaction, whereas

Sms Group Gmbh, Delhi vs. ACIT.Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 377/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

assessee raising preliminary objections and brought to our notice relevant submissions made along with reliance of the decision of ITAT, Vishakhapatnam objecting to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Further, he referred to page 1 of supplementary paper book, which are the submissions made before ... Group Gmbh the AO has treated these receipts as FTS in reassessment order instead of treating them as business receipts as mentioned in the reasons recorded. However, ld. CIT (A) observed that it does not vitiate the reassessment proceedings because some receipts as mentioned in the reasons recorded has been

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(2), International Txation, New Delhi

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

ITA 993/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 3(1)(2) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 3297/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)