ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

291 ITR 500Supreme Court of India2007#41 most cited

What is ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

1,030

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. · Rajesh Jhaveri · 291 ITR 500 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · income escaping assessment · prima facie material · tangible material · validity of reopening · initiation of reassessment · sufficiency of material

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Massimo Enterprise, Surat

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and additional ground raised by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1111/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1107 & 1108/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Jignesh Mahesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- 418, Royal Trading Tower, Nr. Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ratan Cinema, Salabatpura, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, 395 003 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpa 2349 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1109/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Anupa Jignesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- B-19, Ashirwad Residency Near Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar China Gate, City Light, Surat-395 Bhawan, Majura Gate, 017 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acspa 6502 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1111/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Massimo Enterprise बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- Fp No.139, Orleaans, Near Sosyo Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Circle, Udhna Magdalla Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfm 0143 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 250Section 68

…appellant had shown transactions of unsecured loans from the above concerns. Hence, the ground was dismissed by CIT(A). We do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 291 ITR 500 (SC) held that the expression “reason to believe” would mean cause or justification and cannot be read to mean that the AO should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. Whether material would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at that stage. In view of the above facts and respectfully following…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Anupa Jignesh Amin, Surat

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and additional ground raised by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1109/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1107 & 1108/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Jignesh Mahesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- 418, Royal Trading Tower, Nr. Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ratan Cinema, Salabatpura, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, 395 003 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpa 2349 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1109/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Anupa Jignesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- B-19, Ashirwad Residency Near Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar China Gate, City Light, Surat-395 Bhawan, Majura Gate, 017 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acspa 6502 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1111/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Massimo Enterprise बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- Fp No.139, Orleaans, Near Sosyo Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Circle, Udhna Magdalla Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfm 0143 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 250Section 68

…appellant had shown transactions of unsecured loans from the above concerns. Hence, the ground was dismissed by CIT(A). We do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 291 ITR 500 (SC) held that the expression “reason to believe” would mean cause or justification and cannot be read to mean that the AO should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. Whether material would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at that stage. In view of the above facts and respectfully following…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Jignesh Mahesh Amin, Surat

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and additional ground raised by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1108/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1107 & 1108/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Jignesh Mahesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- 418, Royal Trading Tower, Nr. Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ratan Cinema, Salabatpura, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, 395 003 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpa 2349 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1109/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Anupa Jignesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- B-19, Ashirwad Residency Near Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar China Gate, City Light, Surat-395 Bhawan, Majura Gate, 017 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acspa 6502 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1111/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Massimo Enterprise बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- Fp No.139, Orleaans, Near Sosyo Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Circle, Udhna Magdalla Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfm 0143 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 250Section 68

…appellant had shown transactions of unsecured loans from the above concerns. Hence, the ground was dismissed by CIT(A). We do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 291 ITR 500 (SC) held that the expression “reason to believe” would mean cause or justification and cannot be read to mean that the AO should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. Whether material would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at that stage. In view of the above facts and respectfully following…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Jignesh Mahesh Amin, Surat

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and additional ground raised by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1107/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1107 & 1108/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Jignesh Mahesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- 418, Royal Trading Tower, Nr. Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ratan Cinema, Salabatpura, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, 395 003 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpa 2349 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1109/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Anupa Jignesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- B-19, Ashirwad Residency Near Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar China Gate, City Light, Surat-395 Bhawan, Majura Gate, 017 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acspa 6502 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1111/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Massimo Enterprise बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- Fp No.139, Orleaans, Near Sosyo Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Circle, Udhna Magdalla Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfm 0143 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 250Section 68

…appellant had shown transactions of unsecured loans from the above concerns. Hence, the ground was dismissed by CIT(A). We do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 291 ITR 500 (SC) held that the expression “reason to believe” would mean cause or justification and cannot be read to mean that the AO should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. Whether material would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at that stage. In view of the above facts and respectfully following…

DCIT, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Ekkta Devlopers, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals are dismissed

ITA 577/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.576 & 577/Srt/2024 (Ays:2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. M/S Ekkta Developers, Central Circle – 4, B-702, Business Point, S. V. Road, Surat Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefe5374R (Appellant) (Respondent) Co Nos.38 & 37/Srt/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.576 & 577/Srt/2024) (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/S Ekkta Developers, Vs. Dcit, B-702, Business Point, S. V. Road, Central Circle – 4, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400058 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2025

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69BSection 69C

…scapement of income and. We do not find infirmity in the decision of CIT(A). At the stage of re-opening, the AO should have prima facie belief regarding escapement of income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Javeri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 291 ITR 500 (SC) held that the expression ‘reason to believe’ would mean cause or justification and cannot be read to mean that the AO should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. Whether material would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at that stage. In view of the facts discussed above and respectfully…

Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Delhi vs. AO, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

ITA 3225/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3225/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac 341, Heritage Tower, Plot No. 1, Income Tax Officer, Sector-3, Dwarka, Ward-56(3), New Delhi-110078 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abppt7714C Assessee By: Sh. Rajendra Kumar Tripathi Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2021-22 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074785307(1) Dated 20.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Kumar TripathiFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…preme Court in the matter of Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2008] 170 Taxman 304/305 ITR 103 (SC) and in the matter of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 14 SCC 208 He further submits that since on the relevant date of passing of intimation order, the issue being highly debatable, the Assessing Officer ought not to have resorted to the provision under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, which was completely unsustainable and bad in law and the same was neither considered by the CIT (Appeals) 4 Rajendra Kum…

Vinita Bajoria, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…the return under the aforesaid provision no opinion was formed and therefore, on this basis, the notice issued was valid. We find that this aspect is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 in the following manner:- "15. In the scheme of things, as noted above, the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) cannot be treated to be an order of assessment. The distinction is also well brought out by the statutory provisions as they stood at different points of time. Under Section 143(1)(a) as it stood prior to 1-4-1989, the ass…

Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Thane

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani Vs. Ito, Ward 3(2) 1 A/34, Drugs Society, Opp. Room No. 4, 6Th Floor, Jk Gram, Samatha Nagar B-Wagle Estate, Midc, Pokhran Road No. 1 Thane (W) Thane (W). Pan/Gir No. Aaupj0472D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 22.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. All The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Interrelated & Interconnected & Relates To Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Order Of Ao In Reopening The 2 Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai

Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

…such a belief. The Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai Supreme Court made it clear that the basis of such belief could be discerned from the material on record which was available with the Assessing Officer. However, the Supreme Court in Rajesh Jhaveri [2007] 291 ITR 500 did not say that it was not necessary for the Assessing Officer to form a "belief" and that the mere fact that there was some material on record was sufficient. In the present case, we find that the first sentence of the so- called reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is mere information received from the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inves…