“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

Spirit Global Constructions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3821/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Spirit Global Vs Acit, Constructions Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle-15, Plot No.1, Lsc, Site No.37- Delhi 38, Morland, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaics2757B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amitosh Moitra, Ca & Roli Chaubey, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 26, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.10187/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company, Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 27.09.2012, Declaring Loss Of Inr 2,91,85,777/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) In Terms Of Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Income So Declared Was Accepted. Thereafter, Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened In Terms Of The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 31.03.2019 & Subsequently, Re-Assessment Order Was Passed On 24.12.2019 By Making Addition Of Inr 3.50 Crores Received From M/S. Anamika Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores & M/S. Gajraj Steel Merchants Pvt.Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores Each By Holding The Same As Unexplained Credits.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

correspondence are available in the Paper Book filed by the assessee. 7. Ld.AR for the assessee further submits that from the perusal of the reasons recorded, as available in Paper Book, supplied by the AO in terms of the letter dated 03.09.2019, satisfaction is recorded with respect to the credit ... deserves to be hold bad in law and consequent order passed be quashed. He prayed accordingly. 8. It is further argued that in the reasons recorded in Column No.17, while granting the approval for re-opening the Ld. PCIT observed “perused reasons satisfied fit case for 148 proceedings”. He submits

ACIT Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Kaashvi Industries, Roorkee

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9319/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Central Circle-13, Vs Kaashvi Industries, New Delhi. Ip-41, Rajpur Sehkariindl. Area, Bhagwanpur, Roorkee-247667. Pan:Aaifk 0475H Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Monika Singh, Cit( Dr ) Department Represented By Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025

Section 143(3)Section 153C

dated 29.01.2016. The Ld.Counsel has invited our attention to page 3 to 5 of the order of Ld.CIT(A) wherein he has extracted the reasons recorded. It is the case of the assessee that the satisfaction note refers to page no.18 of Annexure- S-9 / A-1, in respect

Sunil Kumar Goyal, Neemuch vs. Dy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur

ITA 362/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Deshpande, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Ayushi Sharma, JCIT-DR

Assessing Officer. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that there is inconsistency in the reasons recorded for re-opening and the subject matter of the assessment orders subsequently passed. 12. Ld. AR for the appellant has referred to two paper

Shilpi Goyal, Neemuch vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax Appeal -2, Income Tax Office Udaipur

ITA 469/JODH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL. MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Deshpande, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Ayushi Sharma, JCIT-DR

Shilpi Goyal, Neemuch vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur

ITA 370/JODH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Deshpande, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Ayushi Sharma, JCIT-DR

Chunilal Mahadevbhai Sanja, Morbi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 279/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 279/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Chunilal Mahadevbhai Sanja, Vs. The Pcit-1 C/O M/S. Nobel Cera Coat, Rajkot At-Jambudia, Morbi-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acnpp7711N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 263

assessee has submitted the relevant documents and evidences which are placed in the paper book. The ld. Counsel submitted that in this case, the reasons recorded by the A.O. were vague, therefore, re-assessment proceedings itself is not valid. For that the ld. Counsel, took us through the notice issued ... during the re- assessment proceedings and stated that reasons recorded by the A.O. were bad in law, therefore, reassessment proceedings itself, is not valid, hence consequential order of the ld. PCIT is going to be invalid. For that, the ld. Counsel took us through the paper book page

Saroj Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (4), Patna

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

ITA 242/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

that the learned CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting ground of the appellant that the assessment proceeding is not valid as reasons recorded has not furnished to assessee and Assessing Officer had not complied with direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India

Chander Mohan Bhati, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

ITA 732/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)

Ultimately, Learned CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeal on\nmerits on the basis of material available on record.\n6. Observations and reasons recorded by Learned CIT(A) while dealing\nwith the matter and the issues involved, and in dismissing the appeal, find\nmention in para

Sh. Nasruddin, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kota

Appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by

ITA 716/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153Section 153C

rightly re-opened under section 148A(d) in view of the decision by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal’s case, for the reasons recorded and communicated to the assessee. Discussion 5. As finds mentioned in para 5.2 of the impugned order, in the written submissions dated 17.02.2025, submitted

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

ITA 705/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

India\n331001, Rajasthan\nIndia\nPAN:\n Assessment Year: Dated:\nLetter No:\nAALFB6581E\n2014-15\n06/07/2018\nITBA/AST/F/17/2018-19/1010393413(1)\nSir/Madam/ M/s,\nSubject: Providing copy of reason recorded In case of M/s Bagaria Trade Impex, PAN-\nAALFB6581E, A.Y. 2014-15 -reg.\nas under;\nThe reason recorded for Initialing proceedings ... above table, the omission has resulted in under computation of income to the\ntune of Rs.3,35,86,356,\nIn view of reasons recorded as above I have reason to belleve that Income chargeable to tax has\nescaped assessment amounting to Rs.3,35,86,356/- Accordingly, required approval

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

ITA 697/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nMr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: \nMrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

India\n331001, Rajasthan\nIndia\nPAN:\n Assessment Year: Dated:\nLetter No:\nAALFB6581E\n2014-15\n06/07/2018\nITBA/AST/F/17/2018-19/1010393413(1)\nSir/ Madam/ M/s,\nSubject: Providing copy of reason recorded In case of M/s Bagaria Trade Impex, PAN-\nAALFB6581E, A.Y. 2014-15 -reg.\nas under;\nThe reason recorded for Initialing proceedings ... above table, the omission has resulted in under computation of income to the\ntune of Rs.3,35,86,356,\nIn view of reasons recorded as above I have reason to belleve that Income chargeable to tax has\nescaped assessment amounting to Rs.3,35,86,356/-, Accordingly, required approval

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

ITA 696/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

India\n331001, Rajasthan\nIndia\nPAN:\n Assessment Year: Dated:\nLetter No:\nAALFB6581E\n2014-15\n06/07/2018 ITBA/AST/F/17/2018-19/1010393413(1)\nSir/Madam/ M/s,\nSubject: Providing copy of reason recorded In case of M/s Bagaria Trade Impex, PAN-\nAALFB6581E, A.Y. 2014-15 -reg.\nas under;\nThe reason.recorded for Initialing proceedings ... above table, the omission has resulted in under computation of income to the\ntune of Rs.3,35,86,356,\nIn view of reasons recorded as above I have reason to belleve that Income chargeable to tax has\nescaped assessment amounting to Rs.3,35,86,356/-, Accordingly, required approval

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

issued after taking necessary\napproval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur under section\n151 of the IT Act, 1961. In the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment it\nis alleged that assessee company had taken some accommodation entries from\nsome paper/shell companies for the purpose ... found that the assessee had not fully disclosed the primary facts or had\nfalsified or disclosed incorrect primary facts.\n4.\nThough, in the reasons recorded by ld. AO for reopening of the case he considered this\naspect also but there is certain inconsistency in the facts narrated

ITO Ward 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Radiant Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3660/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Tribunal challenging the relief granting by the CIT(A) vide order, dated 04/03/2025. 7. The Learned Departmental Representative appearing before us placed on record reasons recorded for the reopening of assessment and submitted that the Assessee had failed to produce parties before the Assessing Officer and therefore, the Assessing Officer ... failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer had recorded detailed reasons for reopening assessment and place on record a copy of the said reasons recorded for reopening assessment. 8. Per contra, Learned Authorized Representative submitted that there was no infirmity in the order passed

N Satish Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT - 5, Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2465/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 263

that the ld. PCIT traversed beyond the permissible scope of section 263 by raising an altogether new issue that had no nexus with the reasons recorded for reopening under section 147. According to the ld. Counsel, the reassessment was initiated only on the question of valuation of stock ... unsecured loans of ₹275.16 lakhs appearing in the balance sheet. It is an undisputed position that this issue did not emanate from the reasons recorded for reopening nor from the subject matter of the reassessment order. 6. However, in view of the subsequent developments, it becomes unnecessary

Ajay Garg, Dehradun vs. ACIT Central Circle Dehradun, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 200/DDN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 250

assessment based on illegal and invalid approval thus they are taken together for consideration. - 8. Before us, Ld.AR submits that despite of repeated requests, reasons recorded before re-opening of assessment were never provided to the assessee. He further submits that copy of the Approval memo ... clear whether valid sanction was taken or not by the AO. It is thus submitted that the proceedings initiated without supply the reasons recorded and the material relied upon, deserves to be bad in law and consequent assessment order passed, deserves to be quashed. - 9. Reliance is placed

Shri Vibhu Grover, Kotdwara vs. PCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalvibhu Grover, Pcit, M/S Grover Sales Corporation, Dehradun. Garage Road, Kotdwara, Vs. Pauri-246169 Pan:Agdpg5842R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Department By Shri S.K. Chaterjee, Cit-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 in terms of the reason recorded which are available at PB page 21 & 22. According to the same, assessee took accommodation entry of expenses in the shape of bogus purchases ... made by the assessee. He further submits that information reproduced at page 2 of the revisionary order is not born out from the reasons recorded in the case of the assessee. The AO never asked the assessee about the purchases from M/s Shri Ganpati Enterprises. It is submitted

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dehradun vs. M/S. Sharda Exports, Haridwar

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 45/DDN/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

jurisdiction by the A.O. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the reasons recorded placed in the paper books, it is found that nowhere the Ld. A.O. whispered about ‘failure on the part of the Assessee on disclosed fully ... amounting to Rs. 2,72,99,429/- as not eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Assessee filed objections to the said reasons recorded which were not disposed of by the ld AO by passing a speaking order. 7. Later, a second notice

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dehradun vs. M/S. Sharda Exports, Haridwar

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 44/DDN/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

M/S. Sharda Exports, Meerut vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 41/DDN/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148