← 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

Rama Damu Bhagat, Panvel vs. ITO Ward-1, Panvel

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

ITA 2109/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rama Damu Bhagat, V The Income Tax Officer, Room No.4, Yashoganga S Ward-1, Panvel. Chg, Tilak Road, Panvel – 410206. Maharashtra. Pan: Bicpb8875P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Ajinkya Vaishampayan(Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This 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 A.Y.2013-14 Dated 25.09.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :

Section 144Section 148Section 207(2)Section 207(2)(b)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 48

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 ... proceed to pass its orders.” Unquote. 9. Respectfully following Hon’ble Bombay High Court(supra), we direct the ld.CIT(A) to provide copies of reasons recorded by the 6 ITA No.2109/PUN/2025 [A] Assessing Officer before issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act, and copy of the approval along with copy

Mohd Noorul Huda, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 843/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in both the appeals that, against the order passed under Section 147 r.w. Section 144 dated 17.03.2022, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) on 10.10.2023. In Form No.35, the assessee had provided the email ID mohdnoorulhuda513@gmail.com and opted not to receive communication by email. However, the CIT(A) sent the notices and the order under Section 250 to the old email ID noorulhuda80085@gmail.com, to which the asses

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

declaring total income of Rs.3,02,550/-. The case has been subsequently reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the reasons recorded, as per which income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated

Mohd Noorul Huda, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 842/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in both the appeals that, against the order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 dated 17.03.2022, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) on 10.10.2023. In Form No.35, the assessee had provided the email ID mohdnoorulhuda513@gmail.com and opted not to receive communication by email. However, the CIT(A) sent the notices and the order under Section 250 to the old email ID noorulhuda80085@gmail.com, to which the

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

declaring total income of Rs.3,02,550/-. The case has been subsequently reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the reasons recorded, as per which income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Swikrutee Finance Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 610/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit-Cc-7(3) Swikrutee Finance Private Room No. 655, Floor 6Th, Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Office No. Ii 289 Emca Vs. Mumbai- 400020 House, S B S Road, Mumbai 400001 Pan: Aaocs2723H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Anand Mundra Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) (In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Is Registered As Non-Banking Financial Company (Nbfc) With Reserve Bank Of India & Engaged In The Financial Requirement Of Emerging Small & Medium Enterprises (Sme) Segment, Including Rendering An Advisory Services Relating To Financial Aspect.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

receiving the information from the DDIT (Inv.) Unit 2(2), Kolkata, has not made any enquiry independently, as it clearly appears from the reasons recorded as reproduced in para No. 2 of the assessment order. Admittedly, the assessee has duly claimed before the Ld.AO that it has not done transaction

Rohit Sushilkumar Sawhney, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 34 (3) (2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4683/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anant Pai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 48

short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2007-08. 2. In this case, the Assessee has raised the main issue that despite of seeking reasons recorded for reopening the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, vide letter dated 20.06.2014, which was though taken into consideration by considering the specific request mentioned ... Rohit Sushilkumar Sawhney dated 28.03.2008, in response of the notice dated 28.03.2014 u/s 48 of the Act, the Assessing Officer failed to provide the reason recorded for re-opening the proceedings and thus, Violated the provisions of law as well as the guidelines set out by Hon’ble Apex Court

Chandarkishor Nandkishor Seksaria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4203/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalchandarkishore Vs. Ito, Ward 42(2)(1) Nandkishore Seksaria Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc 70, Seksaria House, Jb Bandra (E) – 400 051. Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059. Pan/Gir No. Amxps4815N (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 270A

Appellant filed reply on 13.12.2021. b. Thereafter, vide letter dated 10.03.2022, filed before the AO on 11.03.2022, the Appeliant raised objections to the reasons recorded. c. Subsequently, vide letter dated 13.03.2022, filed on 14.03.2022, the Appellant furnished details in response to notice issued under section 142(1) dated

Deepti Shreyas Talpade, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(5) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhrideepti Shreyas Talpade Vs. Ito Ward 24(1)(5) 701, 7Th Floor, Dlh Room No. 702, 7Th Floor, Enclave, 90’ Wide Dp Road, Piramal Chamber, Near Windmere Building, Lalbaug, Parel, Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aehpt6420L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

statements recorded on the basis of which the additions are ame and without giving the appellant an opportunity of cross examination e) Without providing reasons recorded for reopening f) Without granting an opportunity of being heard 2) In the facts and the circumstances of the case

Shreyas Anil Talpade, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 6913/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 69B

opinion since the assessment was duly\ncompleted u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 17.01.2014\nf) Without providing reasons recorded for reopening\ng) Without granting an opportunity of being heard\n2) In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

Maa Kailadevi Oil Industries, Morena vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Maa Kailadevi Oil Industries, Vs. Pr. Cit, Bheem Nagar, Ater Road, Gwalior Porsa, Morena, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aasfm4432G Assessee By : Shri Ramakant Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ramakant Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

information, AO has initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and completed the assessment after due verification and based on the reasons recorded by the AO. The respective authorities have approved the initiation of proceedings based on the material available on record/ reasons recorded ... without non verification of another purchase transaction, which was not the subject matter of the Maa Kailadevi Oil Industries reasons recorded by the AO. The same cannot be a reason to treat the assessment order as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. If there

Baby Kunwar Jhala, Neemuch vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 87/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 148Section 68

group and at the time of assessment the Ld. AD has assessed the income in the hands of the appellant which is against the reasons recorded, 3. Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the reopening of the case U/s 148 merely on the basis of information received by ADIT

Pushkar Nagda, Kanakheda vs. Dy Commissioner of Incometax, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 352/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 148Section 68

group and at the time of assessment the Ld. AD has assessed the income in the hands of the appellant which is against the reasons recorded, 3. Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the reopening of the case U/s 148 merely on the basis of information received by ADIT

Bherulal Nagda, Kanakheda vs. Dy Commission of Income-Tax, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 351/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 148Section 68

group and at the time of assessment the Ld. AD has assessed the income in the hands of the appellant which is against the reasons recorded, 3. Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the reopening of the case U/s 148 merely on the basis of information received by ADIT

Gayatri Sharma, Kelukheda Teh. Choti Sadri vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 338/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 148Section 68

group and at the time of assessment the Ld. AD has assessed the income in the hands of the appellant which is against the reasons recorded, 3. Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the reopening of the case U/s 148 merely on the basis of information received by ADIT

Gayatri Sharma, Neemuch vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 337/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 148Section 68

group and at the time of assessment the Ld. AD has assessed the income in the hands of the appellant which is against the reasons recorded, 3. Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the reopening of the case U/s 148 merely on the basis of information received by ADIT

Ram Chandra Anil Kumar Goyak HUF, Geetayan vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income-Tax Office Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 468/JODH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 148Section 68

group and at the time of assessment the Ld. AD has assessed the income in the hands of the appellant which is against the reasons recorded, 3. Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the reopening of the case U/s 148 merely on the basis of information received by ADIT

Gen Singh, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with directions as above

ITA 408/JODH/2023[2017-189]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2017-189

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

considered rival submissions and perused the record. The assessment was framed u/s 144 and the Ld. CIT(A) appeal was dismissed ex parte. The reasons recorded by Ld. CIT(A) primarily rest on non-compliance of notices. It is evident from the condonation paragraph itself that the assessee learned

Smt. Satyawati Marwaha Through Legal Heir Sh, Chander Sheikhar Marwaha, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 347/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

both counts (relevant part of which is reproduced): Written submission on the legal aspect by Ld. AR of assessee: “It is submitted that the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO are prima facie only on the basis of investigation wing for purpose to enquiry regarding a transaction. So, the reasons ... stated in reasons, cannot, in any case, lead to a belief that income has escaped assessment. Sir, it is stated that Ld. AO in reasons recorded states that there are credits of Rs.2,83,67,948/-. Further merely the fact that there were credits in bank accounts of assessee could

Smt. Satyawati Marwaha Through Legal Heir Sh. Chander Sheikhar Marwaha, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 346/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

both counts (relevant part of which is reproduced): Written submission on the legal aspect by Ld. AR of assessee: “It is submitted that the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO are prima facie only on the basis of investigation wing for purpose to enquiry regarding a transaction. So, the reasons ... stated in reasons, cannot, in any case, lead to a belief that income has escaped assessment. Sir, it is stated that Ld. AO in reasons recorded states that there are credits of Rs.2,83,67,948/-. Further merely the fact that there were credits in bank accounts of assessee could

Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal Ito, Ward – 2(3)(4), Flat No.304, 3Rd Floor, Room No.613, Vatika Township, Near Model, Vs. Aaaykar Bhavan, Township, Parvat Patia Majura Gate, Surat - 395010. Surat - 395002. Pan No. Adspk 6097N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rasesh, CA
Section 144Section 148Section 69A

material on record. Before us the assessee has not filed relevant material on record. Before us the assessee has not filed copy of the reasons recorded and referred only to the observation of copy of the reasons recorded and referred only to the observation of copy of the reasons recorded

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT &
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

reopened the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after recording reasons for reopening the case. The reasons recorded are reproduced herein below :- “ Information regarding accommodation entry taken by the assessee is available with the department for FY 2015-16 relevant