“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

Singhal Fastners Co. P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1066/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacs1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer & Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/S Raghvender Shankar Income Tax Officer, Finance & Investment Ward-15(1), Company Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110052 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Further, the assessee vide its reply also requested to provide the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. The reasons recorded were provided to the assessee during the assessment proceedings vide order sheet entry dated ... pertinent to mention here that, the assessee did not filed any objection against the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. A detailed show cause notice dated 13.12.2016 was issued to the assessee to furnish the reply on or before 20.12.2016, however

Subhash Shah, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Faridabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stand allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 1021/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhsubhash Shah, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(4), Prop. M/S Fancy Cloth House, Faridabad, Haryana Mfc 5842, Sanjay Colony, Sector-23, Faridabad Haryana (Pan: Aynps4924N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Akul Agarwal, Fca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad Relating To Assessment Years 2010-11. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Regards To The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S. 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act As The Same Is Without Forming Reasonable Belief While

For Appellant: Sh. Akul Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

income to tax, proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are being initiated in the case of the assessee.” 4. Consequent to reasons recorded, notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2017 was issued and thereafter notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued to scrutinize ... reasonable belief and hence, the reopening is bad in law. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the very basic finding in the reasons recorded is wrong qua the assessee has filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year, but AO recorded that

Nks Holdings P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

ITA 6690/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Nks Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 3198/15, 4Th Floor, Gali No.1, Central Circle-32, Sangatrashan, New Delhi. Paharganj, New Delhi – 110 055. Pan: Aakcs7827C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amol Sinha, Advocate & Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.08.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeal No.317/17-18/2980 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed U/S 144/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-32, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

other Government Investigation Agencies is sufficient material for reopening the case u/s 147/148.” 5. Though ld. AR has raised substantial contentions challenging the reasons recorded u/s 148 of the Act to be vitiated for reasons that same are not based on any live link and mere borrowed satisfaction from information

Arp Securities Limited, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 150/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

facts of the case and confirmed the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in taking action u/s 147 without providing a copy of the reasons recorded w/s 148(2), which is without jurisdiction. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the action

Yogesh Mutha, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur, Ncrb, Statue Circle

ITA 536/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

suchlike case.\n2.\nBy impugned order, Learned CIT(A), has dismissed the appeal filed\nby the assessee affirming the assessment order and the reasons recorded\ntherein.\n3.\nArguments heard. File perused.\nBrief Facts\n4.\nCase of the assessee was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny.\nIt led to issuance ... nMatter reached CIT(A)\n10. When the issue was raised in appeal before Learned CIT(A),\nchallenging denial of deduction for the reasons recorded by the Assessing\nOfficer, on behalf the appellant, there it was reiterated that there is no limit\nto restrict land appurtenant to residential house

Vashisht Alloys, Nahan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Yamuna Nagar

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1003/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) a/w Ms. DeepaliFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

advanced arguments on legal ground as well as on merits and supported the case of the assessee. The Ld. AR assailed the reasons recorded by Ld. AO to reopen the case of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR also advanced arguments and supported the orders of lower authorities. Having heard ... returned income. 2.2 Subsequently, the case was reopened and a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30-03-2017. A copy of the reasons recorded has been placed on record. Upon perusal of the same, it could be seen that the reopening is in the background of information received

Narendrakumar Shankarbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(10), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 830/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

letter dated 03-10-2018 along with copy of return of income declaring income at Rs. 5,91,650/- and requested to provide the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessing Officer provided the copy of reasons for reopening and subsequently issued notice ... assessee is not challenging the authority who has approved the reopening as well as has not pointed out any discrepancies in the reasons recorded. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer

Rajnibhai Bhogilal Desai, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Nadiad

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

ITA 533/AHD/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

initio, illegal, without jurisdiction and not following the principle of natural justice. 2. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the reasons recorded u/s 148 are invalid as they are based on incorrect facts. 3. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the reassessment order cannot ... sustain as the addition made in the reassessment order is not based upon reasons recorded. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment order is invalid and bad in law. 5. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant

Muthiah Lakshmanan, Chennai vs. ITO Ncw 10(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1958/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1958/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Muthiah Lakshmanan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 16/3, Seethaamma Colony, 1 Main Non Corporate Ward 10(3), Road, 2Nd Street, Alwarpet, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Adopl7512R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. On Perusal Of The Assessment Order, We Note That The Assessing Officer Made Additions On Account Of Income From Speculation & Income From Unexplained Investment. Admittedly, No Return Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

pendency of the present appeal, I also filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, dated 16.09.2025, seeking copies of the reasons recorded for reopening, approvals, audit objections and related documents, as such records are relevant to my defence. 5. When the appeal was taken up for hearing ... validity of the reopening of my assessment and to seek copies of all documents relied upon by the authorities in that regard, including reasons recorded and approvals obtained, despatch of notice and others, since such rights are available to me in law. 7. In the above circumstances, I pray that

Avon Containners Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 5161/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that objection filed in response to reasons recorded were never disposed off by a speaking order before passing the final assessment order, which has invalidated the entire proceedings, since objections should be disposed off point wise ... mechanical approval by the Ld. PCIT under section 151 of the Act. Further, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the following two different reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Act: Reasons dated 22.03.2019 (Manual copy) 12 Avon Containners

Partap Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-55(1), New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 7359/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

thereof the proceedings initiated are illegal, untenable and therefore unsustainable. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that reasons recorded mechanically without application of mind do not constitute valid reasons to believe for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act 1.3 That

Partap Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-55(1), New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 7358/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

Partap Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-55(1), New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 7357/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

Gajanand Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

return, there are certain issues as mentioned below which need further clarification:- 28 Gajanand Financial Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.126/Nag./2025 Issues as per reasons recorded for reopening 1. M/s Gajanand Financial Consultancy Pvt Ltd is a company registered in Kolkata. Its registered address during

Keezhuparamba Service Cooperative Bank Ltd, Malappuram vs. ITO Ward 2, Tirur

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 568/COCH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan PFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 80P

deduction under Section 80P of the Act in respect of entire income. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny for the following reasons recorded in Paragraph 1 of the Assessment Order: “1. Reasons for selection of the Case and Type of Case and background facts:- The assessee

Keezhuparamba Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Malappuram vs. ITO Ward 2, Tirur

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 567/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan PFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 80P

Sukhminder Singh, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 278/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singhla, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

impugned order u/s 250 without properly serving the notices to the assessee. 3. That the notice u/s 148 was issued on the basis of reasons recorded on vague information and without application of mind. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs 20,86,100/- (after

Income Tax Officer, Mohali Punjab vs. Taj Land Developefrs and Promoters Private Limited, Sector Mohali Punjab

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 606/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: \nShri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nSmt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151

acknowledgement of the return\nwas bearing No.304453221011011. The AO had issued a\nnotice u/s 148 on 26.03.2018. He has reopened the\nassessment. The reasons recorded by him are on page No. 7\nand 8 of the Paper Book. The proforma sent for approval to\nthe Addl. Commissioner of Income ... ndisallowance stand deleted.\n5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.\"\n\n\"Thus, the ITAT opined that the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings\nunder section 147/148 was arbitrary and bad in law and therefore assessment\nframed consequent thereto was obviously illegal and void

Yashodhan Shanti Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4159/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 68

assessee. Subsequently on the basis of information received on Insight Portal, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) for reopening are extracted as under: “Information received head of High Value Transactions for the F.Y 2012-13. During the year ... primary argument of the ld. AR is that the AO has reopened the assessment without examining the records which fact are substantiated from the reason recorded where the AO himself is admitting that the case records of the assessee are not available with him. The ld. AR further argued that

Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3260/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Jayant Bhat

Section 139(5)Section 148Section 263

reasons were recorded that there was escapement. The assessment was reopened on the basis of reason assessment was reopened on the basis of reasons recorded by the s recorded by the Assessing Officer, which constituted reasonable basis for coming Assessing Officer, which constituted reasonable basis for coming Assessing Officer, which ... survive. It was proceedings initiated under section 263 cannot survive. It was proceedings initiated under section 263 cannot survive. It was urged that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were urged that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer wer urged that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer