“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

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2271/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT

Section 131Section 132

supplement or improve upon the satisfaction note. For this, we draw strength from the jurisprudence available in the context of examination of the reasons recorded / satisfaction drawn by the AO for re-opening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. It is settled law that reasons as recorded for reopening ... drawn on the basis of reasons not recorded by him. He has to speak through the reasons." Their Lordships added that "the reason recorded should be self explanatory and should not keep the assessee guessing for reasons. Reasons provided the link between the conclusion and the evidence

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2270/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT

Section 131Section 132

Masilamani Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 2269/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

Income Tax Officer 23 2 6, Mumbai vs. Manmohan Daulal Rathi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5467/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND

Sanjeev Garg, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(2)(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 992/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292BSection 45Section 54

assessee has raised the fundamental objections on assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 on the following grounds: i) Assessing Officer while recording reasons, recorded that no return of income was filed. Accordingly, assessment framed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is invalid as the facts were wrongly recorded and relied ... below and contended that the reasons are prima facie belief that income has escaped which has been complied by the Assessing Officer and therefore, reasons recorded cannot be faulted. 9. Having heard the rival submissions, we find it pertinent to reproduce the reasons for reopening the assessment

Shri Likha Saaya, Nirjili vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- North Lakhimpur., Lakhimpur

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

ITA 50/GTY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumarand Manmohan Dasita Nos.49 & 50/Gty/2021 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Likha Saaya S/O. Shri Likha Vs. Ito, Ward-North, Lakhimpur Heli, P-Sector, P.O. Nirjuli, Borah Complex, D.K.Road, North District Papumpare, Arunachal Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam- Pradesh-791109 787001 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sarala Agarwal. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Jcit

For Appellant: Sarala Agarwal. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 10(26)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

present appeal, when we examine the legal issue on the touchstone of the settled judicial precedents on re-opening let us examine the reason recorded by the AO to re- open the assessment of AY 2010-11 pursuant to which the AO issued the notice ... assessee company directly or indirectly whereas the foundation fact on the basis of which reopened the assessment as is evident from the reasons recorded (supra) was that high value of money was deposited in the bank account of M/s Miracle which in- turn has been routed to the assessee through

Shri Likha Saaya, Nirjili vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- North Lakhimpur., Lakhimpur

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

ITA 49/GTY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sarala Agarwal. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 10(26)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Old Ward 3(1)(3), New Ward 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1491/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1491/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2012-13 Ratnadeep Infrastructure The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Private Limited Old Ward-3(1)(3) V/S. 126, 1St Floor New 3 (1) (2) Neelam Shopping Center Krishna Nagar Chowk Ahmedabad – 382 346 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecr 5728 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 01/07/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-2012 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2011-12:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

erred in law as well as on facts in upholding reopening of assessment u/s. 147 based on incorrect, invalid, insufficient and vague reasons recorded for reopening based on borrowed satisfaction without due application of mind.” 2.1. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.1491/Ahd/2025 ... erred in law as well as on facts in upholding reopening of assessment u/s. 147 based on incorrect, Invalid, insufficient and vague reasons recorded for reopening based on borrowed satisfaction without due application of mind.” ITA No.1490/Ahd/2025 for AY 2011-12 3. The brief facts of the case are that

Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Old Ward 3(1)(3) New Ward3(1)(2)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Greenline Ecofab Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1373/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1373/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Greenline Ecofab Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 406, Jeevan Deep, Opp. Sub- Income-Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Vs. Jail, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 Surat, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg 2881 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 68

Rs.15,00,000/- from M/s Avtar Trading Co. (Proprietor: Deep Bhattacharya) through various shell companies. A fund movement chart is produced in the reasons recorded as well as the assessment order, as per which M/s Avtar Trading Co. deposited cash of Rs.13,06,000/- in its bank account and paid ... invalid and contrary to the first proviso of Section 147 of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the ground by observing that the reasons recorded is self-explanatory. The assessee had filed similar reply before the AO which was not accepted by the AO. The CIT(A) has reproduced

M/S King Exports Thru Madan Lal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

ITA/96/2012HC Punjab & Haryana04 Nov 2025

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Section 133CSection 139Section 142Section 143Section 148Section 92E

authenticity of this document -9- ITA-96-2012 (O&M) notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148. Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section

Viva Style and Fashion (India) Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(1), Old Ward 4(1)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 579/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69

Appeal “1. The Ld.AO erred in law as well as on facts in reopening assessment u/s 147 on invalid, insufficient, incorrect and vague reasons recorded for reopening without any independent application of mind and on borrowed satisfaction.” 3. The assessee company filed return of income on 05-02- 2013 declaring

Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.223/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel The Ito बनाम/ 19, New Ambica Park Society Ward-2(1)(2) V/S. D Cabin Sabarmati Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 380 019 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqzpp 2479 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Trivedi, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/10/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Trivedi, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Similarly, in Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Del), the Hon’ble High Court observed that the reasons recorded must demonstrate a live link between the material relied upon and the belief formed; a mere reference to a general investigation report cannot justify reopening ... between the material before the Assessing Officer and the formation of belief that income has escaped assessment. 10. In the present case, both the “reasons recorded” and the assessment order are conspicuously silent on which shares were traded by the assessee, what evidence existed to suggest those shares were bogus

Income-Tax Officer, Palanpur vs. Siddharth Satishbhai Joshi, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1324/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

made by AO on account of unexplained investment in land.” ITO Vs. Siddharth Satishbhai Joshi Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 2– 3. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are reproduced below: “……. 4. Basis of reason to believe: As discussed above the assessee

Hitesh Kumar Prithviraj Kawad, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non-Corporten Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)Section 54F

submitted that this legal issue raised in Ground no.2 relates to reopening and re-assessment and its validity. Bringing our attention to the reasons recorded for re-opening, ld.AR for the assessee :-6-: ITA. No:352 /Chny/2024 submitted that the issue raised in the reasons was the subject matter ... disallowances/additions to the total income as declared by the assessee. :-7-: ITA. No:352 /Chny/2024 8. Further, the ld.AR drew our attention to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment at page 46 of the paper book and submitted that the issue relating to the assessee’s claim for deduction

Maya Kumari, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

appeal the ld. CIT(A) has followed the assessment order and dismissed the\nappeal. Hence this appeal.\nSUBMISSIONS:\n1. No addition made on the reasons recorded u/s 148: At the very outset it is submitted\nthat as the ld. AO issued the notice u/s 148 on the reasons recorded that ... payment of losses., which is illegal and now it is the settled legal\nposition of law that if no addition on the reasons recorded has been made then no other\naddition can be made, for this kindly refer following decisions:\n(a) In the case of CIT vs. Shri

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

ITA 684/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

considering the opening balance. The relevant part of the order of Special Bench is reproduced as below:- "12. We find that one of the reasons recorded by the Division Bench of the Tribunal for referring the issue to the Special Bench was "No decision of any higher authorities was brought

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 661/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 472/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 DCIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Motion Education Limited, 394, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Kota Private स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAICM4637L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Motion Limited, CO. Nos.20 & 21/JP/2025 (Arising out of ITA. Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 &

For Appellant: Mrs. Raksha Birla CA (V.C)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 153A

Joint Commissioner should briefly state his reasons. However, only because he has nodded in favour of Assessing Officer by writing 'yes' to the reasons recorded and accorded permission for reopening of the assessment, the notice of reopening on that count alone cannot fail holding that the assumption of jurisdiction under ... Section 147 is invalid, if application of mind is demonstrable from the material on record. From the record, it emerges that the reasons recorded were placed before the Assistant Commissioner along with other details in prescribed format. It was only after perusing such details that the Assistant Commissioner agreed that

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the\ncross objection of the assessee are allowed

ITA 455/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mrs. Raksha Birla CA (V.C)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

jurisdiction under\nSection 147 is invalid, if application of mind is demonstrable from the material on record.\nFrom the record, it emerges that the reasons recorded were placed before the Assistant\nCommissioner along with other details in prescribed format. It was only after perusing\nsuch details that the Assistant Commissioner