← 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

ITO, Bangalore vs. Sri. K.G. Vijayakumar, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 19/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgeincome-Tax Officer, Ward- 6(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Shri K.G.Vijayakumar, No.11705, Tiara Block, Prestige Montecarlo, Yelahanka, Bangalore. … Respondent Pan:Amcpk6022A & Cross Objn.No.81/Bang/2014 (In Ita No.19/Bang/2014) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri K.G.Vijayakumar, Bangalore. … Cross-Objector Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 6(4), Bangalore. … Respondent Revenue By: Dr.Shankar Prasad, Jcit(Dr). Assessee By: Shri V.Srinivasan, Ca. Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2014. Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2015. O R D E R Per Smt. P.Madhavi Devi, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objections Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)–

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Shankar Prasad, JCIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148

assessment has to be held as a nullity for non-furnishing of ITA No.19 & CO 81/Bang/2014 Shri K.G.Vijayakumar. Page 5 of 8 reasons recorded for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act. Copy of the order of the Tribunal is also placed before us. 5. Having regard ... reproduced hereunder for ready reference: ITA No.19 & CO 81/Bang/2014 Shri K.G.Vijayakumar. Page 6 of 8 “26. With regard to the non-furnishing of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before completing the assessment, the factual position is that the notice u/s.147 of the Act, dt 11.08.2006 was served