← 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

Lokesh Kumar Khabya, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5104/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

failed to consider that, no other addition is permissible if no addition made on the basis of reasons recorded for reopening. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld 3 CIT(A) failed to considered that additions cannot be made without any incriminating material ... provider and income was estimated on the basis of nature of entry allegedly provided. Thus, admittedly, no addition was made on the basis of reasons recorded; therefore, the assessment orders in those cases are bad in law. The ld AR of the assessee submits that he has already filed copy

Lokesh Kumar Khabya, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5103/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

failed to consider that, no other addition is permissible if no addition made on the basis of reasons recorded for reopening. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld 3 CIT(A) failed to considered that additions cannot be made without any incriminating material ... provider and income was estimated on the basis of nature of entry allegedly provided. Thus, admittedly, no addition was made on the basis of reasons recorded; therefore, the assessment orders in those cases are bad in law. The ld AR of the assessee submits that he has already filed copy

Lokesh Kumar Khabya, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5102/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

failed to consider that, no other addition is permissible if no addition made on the basis of reasons recorded for reopening. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld 3 CIT(A) failed to considered that additions cannot be made without any incriminating material ... provider and income was estimated on the basis of nature of entry allegedly provided. Thus, admittedly, no addition was made on the basis of reasons recorded; therefore, the assessment orders in those cases are bad in law. The ld AR of the assessee submits that he has already filed copy

Lokesh Kumar Khabya, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5101/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

failed to consider that, no other addition is permissible if no addition made on the basis of reasons recorded for reopening. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld 3 CIT(A) failed to considered that additions cannot be made without any incriminating material ... provider and income was estimated on the basis of nature of entry allegedly provided. Thus, admittedly, no addition was made on the basis of reasons recorded; therefore, the assessment orders in those cases are bad in law. The ld AR of the assessee submits that he has already filed copy

Lokesh Kumar Khabya, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5100/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

failed to consider that, no other addition is permissible if no addition made on the basis of reasons recorded for reopening. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld 3 CIT(A) failed to considered that additions cannot be made without any incriminating material ... provider and income was estimated on the basis of nature of entry allegedly provided. Thus, admittedly, no addition was made on the basis of reasons recorded; therefore, the assessment orders in those cases are bad in law. The ld AR of the assessee submits that he has already filed copy

Atharv Star India Private Limited, Thane vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4805/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

failed to consider that, no other addition is permissible if no addition made on the basis of reasons recorded for reopening. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld 3 CIT(A) failed to considered that additions cannot be made without any incriminating material ... provider and income was estimated on the basis of nature of entry allegedly provided. Thus, admittedly, no addition was made on the basis of reasons recorded; therefore, the assessment orders in those cases are bad in law. The ld AR of the assessee submits that he has already filed copy

Atharv Star India Private Limited, Thane vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4791/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

failed to consider that, no other addition is permissible if no addition made on the basis of reasons recorded for reopening. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld 3 CIT(A) failed to considered that additions cannot be made without any incriminating material ... provider and income was estimated on the basis of nature of entry allegedly provided. Thus, admittedly, no addition was made on the basis of reasons recorded; therefore, the assessment orders in those cases are bad in law. The ld AR of the assessee submits that he has already filed copy

Atharv Star India Private Limited, Thane vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4790/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

failed to consider that, no other addition is permissible if no addition made on the basis of reasons recorded for reopening. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld 3 CIT(A) failed to considered that additions cannot be made without any incriminating material ... provider and income was estimated on the basis of nature of entry allegedly provided. Thus, admittedly, no addition was made on the basis of reasons recorded; therefore, the assessment orders in those cases are bad in law. The ld AR of the assessee submits that he has already filed copy

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore stands dismissed

ITA 5690/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

examined this issue from Para 6 to Para 11 Pages 3 to 14 of the appeal order dated 26.03.2009. For the reasons recorded by my Learned Predecessor, it is found that the proportionate interest expenditure of Rs. 41.70 Crores can reasonably be attributed towards earning of exempt income

Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly,\nGround No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore\nstands dismissed

ITA 4109/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, `E' BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT\n&\nSHRI ARUN

Kisan International Trading Fze, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 6152/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Kisan International Trading Fze, Vs. Acit, Circle C/O Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Int. Tax 2(1)(2), C – 179, Mansarover Garden, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015. (Pan :Aaeck0424D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 19.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 43 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 06.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On Facts & In Law The Order Dated 06Th December 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)'} & Order Dated 23Rd December 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Are Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio.

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115A(5)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 251

upholding jurisdiction to re-assesses u/s 147 not appreciating that: (i) Notice u/s 148 was not served upon the appellant (ii) Copy of reasons recorded us 148(2) of the Act have not been provided by the AO. (iii) As per provisions of section 115A(5) of the Income

Omega Broadcast Private Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 4952/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154

error otherwise the assessee had not disclosed the source of deposit of cash in the bank accounts. 9. Now what comes up from the reasons recorded for reopening is that there is an allegation of deposit of Rs.11,34,000/- in cash out of total deposit of Rs.6 ... referring to the copies of bank statement provided at pages no.76-85 of the paper book established that the cash deposits as referred in the reasons recorded for reopening in fact pertain to FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 and not to the year under consideration. 9.1 In this

Omega Broadcast Private Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 4951/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154

error otherwise the assessee had not disclosed the source of deposit of cash in the bank accounts. 9. Now what comes up from the reasons recorded for reopening is that there is an allegation of deposit of Rs.11,34,000/- in cash out of total deposit of Rs.6 ... referring to the copies of bank statement provided at pages no.76-85 of the paper book established that the cash deposits as referred in the reasons recorded for reopening in fact pertain to FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 and not to the year under consideration. 9.1 In this

Omega Broadcast Private Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT Circle-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 4950/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154

error otherwise the assessee had not disclosed the source of deposit of cash in the bank accounts. 9. Now what comes up from the reasons recorded for reopening is that there is an allegation of deposit of Rs.11,34,000/- in cash out of total deposit of Rs.6 ... referring to the copies of bank statement provided at pages no.76-85 of the paper book established that the cash deposits as referred in the reasons recorded for reopening in fact pertain to FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 and not to the year under consideration. 9.1 In this

Satbir Sagwal, Karnal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Karnal

ITA 1617/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Satbir, Sagwal C/O Tej Mohan Vs Income Tax, Officer Singh H.No.527, Sector 10D Ward-4 Karnal Haryana Chandigarh 160011 Pan No. Bdops3759N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

proceedings under section 148 in as much as there has been no reason to believe that there was an escapement of income and the reasons recorded are based only on borrowed information and as such upholding of the assessment passed u/s 147 is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That

Capricon Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5696/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

quantum are relatable to such investment and earning of exempt income. It is for the AO to disclose and open his mind through the reasons recorded by him and he has to speak through the reasons. It is equally relevant to emphasize that the satisfaction so recorded

Sushil Rice and General Mills, Pingli Road Karnal vs. ITO Ward-1-Karnal, Karnal

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2236/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: None (Written Adjournment)For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148

assessee’s assessment was very short and the CIT (A) has not appeal with the issue. It was contended that even copy of reasons recorded were not supplied and, hence, there is the violation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India

Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja, Khakhadabela, Paddhari vs. ITO WD 2(1)(4), RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed, to the extent indicated above

ITA 459/RJT/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.459/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja Vs. Ito Ward 2 (1) (4), Khakhadabela, Paddhari, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot - 360110 Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agvpj2529E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 26/07/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 25/11/2009 U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. That The Reasons Recorded U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Ld. A.O. Were Merely Based On The Suspicion & Without Any Tangible Material So As To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. Hence The Reassessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Quashed Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. That the reasons recorded u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Ld. A.O. were merely based on the suspicion and without any tangible material so as to suggest ... 16/Rjt/2024, vide order dated 17.03.2025, wherein it was held as follows: “10. We have gone through the facts of the case, the reasons recorded for reopening u/s 147 of the Act, the submission and the various decisions of the Courts including those relied upon by the assessee. Since, the assessee

Shubhmani Foundation Society, Bharatpur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

ITA 686/JPR/2025[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, While Challenging Order Dated 24.03.2024, Passed By Learned Cit(E), As Thereby An Application Filed By The Said Society-Appellant, Seeking Its Registration U/S 12Ab Of The Of The Income Tax Act (In Short “The Act”), On The Following Five Grounds:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT
Section 12A

subsequently i.e. on 07.05.2025. 4. Vide separate order of even date, application received from Learned AR for the appellant-applicant stands dismissed, for the reasons recorded therein. 5. Since none has appeared on behalf of the appellant-applicant, arguments have been put forth on behalf of the Revenue. 3 Shubhmani ... cared to appear on behalf of the applicant. Vide separate order of even date, application seeking adjournment for arguments stands rejected for the reasons recorded therein. 5 Shubhmani Foundation Society, Bharatpur. 10. Consequently, the application signed by the authorized representative i.e Learned C.A., under his signatures, seeking condonation of delay

Sheetal Bathla, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Kota, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shsrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.03.2019 which 3 Sheetal Bathla, Jaipur. was served upon the assessee through Registered Post. The reasons recorded are reproduced as under :- “the assessee has credited an amount of Rs. 1,13,75,000/- in her bank account during ... perspective and sense. Hence this appeal. SUBMISSIONS: 1. The reasons are wrong and vague:1.1At the very outset it is submitted that the reason recorded by the ld. AO are wrong and vague without any material. As the ld. AO has stated that “the assessee has credited an amount