← 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

Madan Lal, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Fatehabad

In the result, Assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 190/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 190/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Madan Lal, The Ito, Ganaga Pipe Ind, बनाम Ward-1, G.T.Road, Fatehabad Vs. Village Dhangar, Fatehbad 125050 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acapl2915R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.12.2023 Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The A.Y. 2017- 18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 on 28.03.2021 without having any cogent reasons. The main reason as per para-3 of reasons recorded is that - “3. Sh. Madan Lal has reported income of Rs. 4,03,120/- in his return of income during the year under consideration

DCIT, Cen Cir 2(2), Chennai vs. Anbezhil Suryaraj Kumar, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1676/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1676/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Anbezhil Suryaraj Kumar, Flat No. G.2, Aarudhira Flats, 4Th Street, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Aetpa4862K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 9 Days. The Dcit Central Circle 2(2), Chennai Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Appellant-

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 54

alignment with the earlier treatment of the cash consideration as long term capital gain by the Assessing Officer. We agree with the reasons recorded by the 10 I.T.A. No.1676/Chny/25 ld. CIT(A) vide para 6.5.9 to 6.5.11 of the impugned order. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1536/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1535 & 1536/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. M/S Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 11, Pollock Street, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabce9293P] Appearances By: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 25.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That U/S 2. 139(1) Of The Act On 10-10-2019 Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 10,02,960/-. The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At "Ladhuram Toshniwal Group" On 08-03-2022 As A Part Of "Jain Group" Of Concerns/ Persons At Various Places & Simultaneously, Business

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

issued by the AO to the assessee along with the detailed questionnaire, calling for various details/documents/explanations in connection with the assessment proceedings. Copies of reasons recorded as well as copy of relevant information and materials relied upon, as uploaded on the Insight portal, were also provided to the assessee ... have done without further inquiry/verification. Yet another contention emphasized by the learned Senior Counsel is that the post notice correspondence made after the reasons recorded could not have added anything which was lacking in the reasons themselves. He urged that in absence of any statement given by any Director

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1535/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1535 & 1536/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. M/S Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 11, Pollock Street, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabce9293P] Appearances By: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 25.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That U/S 2. 139(1) Of The Act On 10-10-2019 Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 10,02,960/-. The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At "Ladhuram Toshniwal Group" On 08-03-2022 As A Part Of "Jain Group" Of Concerns/ Persons At Various Places & Simultaneously, Business

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

issued by the AO to the assessee along with the detailed questionnaire, calling for various details/documents/explanations in connection with the assessment proceedings. Copies of reasons recorded as well as copy of relevant information and materials relied upon, as uploaded on the Insight portal, were also provided to the assessee ... have done without further inquiry/verification. Yet another contention emphasized by the learned Senior Counsel is that the post notice correspondence made after the reasons recorded could not have added anything which was lacking in the reasons themselves. He urged that in absence of any statement given by any Director

Maan Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi vs. ACIT, C.C.2, Ranchi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/RAN/2025[18-19]Status: HeardITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.176-179/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Ayrs :2013-14, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) Maan Promoters Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, 357/A, Professor Colony, Ranchi Karam Toli, Ranchi स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aagcm 0643 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : All The Above Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2025 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Patna-3, Against Which The Assessee Preferred Appeals Before The Tribunal. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Common Except The Figures & Assessment Years In Question, Therefore, All The Four Appeals Are Heard Together & Decided By This Common Order. 3. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.176/Ran/2025 For A.Y.2013-2014. 4. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee There Was A Survey Operation Conducted U/S.133A Of The Act, Which Was Concluded On 2

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148

above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising multiple grounds, however, at the time of hearing ld. AR contended that the reasons recorded as per assessment order as alleging that the transaction in bank account No.496620110000209 was not disclosed which was not correct and on the basis