“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

Hiteshi Leasing and Housing Pvt Ltd, New Delho vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

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

ITA 4620/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhiteshi Leasing & Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 1, Yogi Associates, Faridabad. E – 335, East Of Kailash, New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aaach8298J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pushpdeep Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Order : 15.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Gurgaon-3 [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 04.081.2024 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(A) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Assessing Officer & Cit(A), While Passing The Order Erred In: A. Passing The Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 153A Despite The Fact The Assessee Was Not Searched & The Assessee Was Issued Notice Under Section 153C On 29.1 1.2013. This Is A Jurisdictional Error

For Appellant: Shri Pushpdeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 131Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

section 153C read with section 153A of the Act " 7. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice reasons recorded by the AO which are reproduced in the assessment order and he submitted that the assessee has moved an application on 10.03.2025, taken

DCIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi vs. Praveen Kumar Jolly, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in No

ITA 1654/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Praveen Kumar Jolly, Central Circle-06, 39/1, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi-110008. Pan-Aagpj0144C Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

necessary Audit Report and other documents were filed alongwith the return of income. Thereafter, the case was re-opened in terms of the reasons recorded before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and notice u/s 148 was issued on 24.04.2018. The basis for re-opening the assessment ... both on facts and in law in confirming the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO, despite the same being bad in law, as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are vague in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts

Mahabir, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 2(5), Gurgaon

ITA 879/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

expansion of Municipal limits thereafter is irrelevant and should be disregarded. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid, if we examine the reasons recorded, the copy of which is placed at pages 2 & 2A of the paper book, the AO has not made any reference of the fact that

Mahabir, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 2(5), Gurgaon

ITA 2597/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 712/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

operated by Shri Mukesh Banka and\ntherefore, Id. DR supported the finding recorded in the assessment order\nand prayed that the considering the reasons recorded in the order of the\n20\nITA Nos.709/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Sapna Karnani\nassessee order of the Id. CIT(A) be quashed and that

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

ITA 711/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

operated by Shri Mukesh Banka and therefore, ld. DR supported the finding recorded in the assessment order and prayed that the considering the reasons recorded in the order of the DCIT vs. Sapna Karnani assessee order of the ld. CIT(A) be quashed and that

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 710/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

operated by Shri Mukesh Banka and\ntherefore, Id. DR supported the finding recorded in the assessment order\nand prayed that the considering the reasons recorded in the order of the\n\n20\nITA Nos.709/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Sapna Karnani\nassessee order of the Id. CIT(A) be quashed and that

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 709/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

Sanjay Kumar Drolia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1025/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1025/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Sanjay Kumar Drolia, Vs Ito Ward-49(1), Kolkata 48/7, Tulsidham, Jessore Road, Bangur Avenue Crossing, Kolkata-700055 Pan No. : Admpd 0082 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-4, Chennai, Dated 24.03.2025 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Had Filed His Original Return Of Income On 02.04.2015 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.9,11.110/-. The A.O. Was In Receipt Of An Information From Ddit (The) Wing, Unit-3(1), Kolkata, Wherein It Was Stated That The Assessee Was Engaged In Facilitating Accommodation Entry In The Form Of Bogus Billing, Bogus Share Capital, Unsecured Loan To The Beneficiary Companies In Lieu Of Commission At The Rate Of 0.50 Percent Of Cheque Amount During The Period From F.Y.2009-10 To 2013-14. On The Basis Of The Said Information, The Ld. A.O. Issued A Notice U/S 148 Of The I. T. Act, 1961, After Obtaining Approval From Appropriate Authority. In Response To The Said Notice The Assessee E-

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148

assessee appeared from time to time and filed all the required details and documents. The A.O was requested to provide certified copy of reasons recorded but the AO. failed to provide the copy of the same to the assessee. Instead, the Ld A.O. issued a show cause notice ... assessee. In response to the said by cause notice, the assessee filed a written submission requesting the AO to provide the copy of the reasons recorded. Further, another submission was filed by the assessee stating that during the year under consideration the assessee was not engaged in any trading activity

Anthonymuthu Udayar Xavier, Sivaganga vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1943/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:1943/Chny/2024 धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15 Anthonymuthu Udayar Xavier, Income Tax Officer, 78 Mgr Salai, Vs. Ward-1 Soodamanipuram, Karaikudi. Karaikudi, Sivaganga – 630 002. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaapx-3145-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit. सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

less than fifty lakh rupees. Separate instruction shall be issued regarding procedure for disposing these cases. :-9-: ITA. No:1943/Chny/2024 9. Admittedly, in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, the Learned AO had formed a belief that income of the assessee to the tune

B D Cotton Association, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward 19(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1216/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 6. The ld. AR submitted that as per the reasons recorded the assessment was reopened for the reason that M/s Agarwal Enterprises has received credit from the assessee whereas while concluding the assessment the AO made ... Accordingly the ld. AR argued that the reopening is done for a different reason and the addition made is completely different from the reasons recorded. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessment was reopened wholly on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132 of Shri Dayabhai Thakkar, director

Steelwill Globotech Private Limited, Faridabad, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, ground nos

ITA 1466/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal (Through VC), &For Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT(DR)

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 92C

respect to interest on loan advances to the extent of Rs.9,03,814/-. We find that the said addition does not emanate from the reasons recorded for reopening. It is no more res integra that where no addition is made in the assessment order for which reasons were recorded

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4309/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

trite law that a Revenue cannot supplement fresh reason for reopening of assessment by relying upon any further material not forming part of the reasons recorded which Ashish Kalra vs. ACIT could be read as itself. For this he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High ... search conducted by the Income tax department in case of M/s Bright Group of cases on 25-11-2010. Reasons recorded are premised upon search conducted on 25-11-2010 in case of M/s Bright Group of cases. Copy of reasons recorded

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4308/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Jalandhar, Civil Lines vs. Sh. Barjesh Singhal, Modern Colony

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 363/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

genuineness of transactions which is missing in original order. (ii) Similar view has been taken by third party (Revenue Audit party) as per reasons recorded. (ⅱi) Accordingly (although this case is reopened within 4 years and provision of disclosure of fully and truly all material facts for assessment ... Income-tax Officer a not affected (b) Gurera Gas cylinders (P) ltd vs CTT (2002)258 ITR 170(P&H) A perusal of the reasons recorded by respondent No. 2 shows that he had applied his mind to the relevant material and formed a belief that the petitioner

Saroj Devi Haldiya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 917/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs.Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(ix)Section 57

above regard, it is submitted that on the request of the assessee the\nlearned AO was kind enough in providing the copy of reasons recorded\nwhich is scanned below-\nThe perusal of the aforesaid reasons reveals that the learned AO was\nmislead by the report of the DDIT inv unit ... Thus the action of\nthe learned AO is based on borrowed satisfaction which is unlawful. It is\nsubmitted that from this note in the reasons recorded by the learned AO it\nis crystal clear that the proceedings under section 148 was initiated without\nframing reasons to believe. The provisions

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Pukhraj Mosun, Kolkatta

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 664/JPR/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumardy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs. Pukhraj Mosun, 1St Floor 18, Hanspukur First Lane, Burrabazar, Kolkata 700007 Pan No.: Aeapm 5882J ...... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

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

heard the rival contentions and perused the assessment order dated 27.02.2020, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 19.02.2025, and the reasons recorded for reopening under section 147 of the Act. From the reasons recorded, it is evident that the reopening was initiated on the basis that ... said company. Thus, in the hands of the assessee, the transaction represents a debit entry and not a credit entry. Consequently, the very reason recorded for reopening is factually incorrect, since the assessee had not availed any loan but had in fact given a loan. Therefore, the basic foundation

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Karnani Solvex Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 480/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR\n\nडा०

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 147Section 250

time of recording\nreasons, when compared with the eventual additions made in the assessments, reveals\nglaring inconsistencies. For the assessment year 2013-14, the reasons recorded alleged\ndeposits of ₹3,28,98,301/-, yet the final addition was restricted to ₹1,97,67,170/- only. In\nthe following year ... alleged deposits as per reasons recorded were\n₹1,50,67,350/-, while the addition ultimately made was ₹1,63,55,298/-. Likewise, for\nA.Y. 2015-16, the reasons referred to deposits of ₹1,58,73,483/-, but the actual addition\nwas reduced to ₹68,59,417/-. These wide variations

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 147Section 250