ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das

103 ITR 437Supreme Court of India1976#70 most cited

What is ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das authority for?

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

721

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,735 Indian tax judgments — from 2001 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · reassessment · escaped income · failure to disclose material facts · live link · beyond four years · material facts · bogus claim

Also reported as

2 SCC 302153 Taxmann 282

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 142(1)Section 68Section 250Section 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 147(a)section 158basection 150true and full disclosurelive linkunexplained jewellerysection 148(2)beyond four years

Judgments citing ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das

Jsk Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-8(1), Mumbai

ITA 5891/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 147Section 68

…e-tax Officer, if he had been circumspect, could have found out the truth, the Income-tax Officer may not on that account be precluded from exercising the power to assess income which had escaped assessment." (p. 644) 8.33 In ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC), the Court held that grounds or reasons which lead to the formation of belief contemplated by section 147(a) of the Act must have a material bearing on the question of escapement of income of the assessee from assessment. Once there exist reasonable grounds for the Income-tax Officer to form the above belief, that would be sufficient to clot…

Azizur Rahman Faizur Rahman, Mumbai vs. ITO-17(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1646/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1646/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Azizur Rahman Faizur Rahman Ito- 17(1)(3) बिाम/ City House, Ground Floor, 55 116, Aaykar Bhavan Maruti Lane, D. N. Road, Fort, M. K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aespr-6467-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Pramod Kumar Parida– Ld Ar Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar- Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 14/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 28/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 17/01/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 27/12/2016 On Certain Grounds. In Ground No.1, The Assessee Has Challenged The Reassessment Jurisdiction Of Ld. Ao & The Ground Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida– Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ition as observed by the Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa v/s. CIT 63 ITR 219, that it is open to examine whether the reason to believe has rational connection with the formation of the belief. To the same effect, the Apex Court in ITO v/s. Lakhmani Merwal Das 103 ITR 437 had laid down that the reasons to believe must have rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of belief i.e. there must be a live link between material coming the notice of the Assessing Officer and the formation of belief regarding escapement of income. If the aforesaid requirement are not met, the Assessee is entitled to cha…

Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 6422/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM I.T.A. Nos. 6351 & 6704/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Dy. CIT, Central Circle-5(4) Shri Nitan Chhatwal Mumbai Room No.1927, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAGPC 9892 G (Revenue) : (Assessee) I.T.A. Nos. 6422 & 6423 /Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Shri Nitan Chhatwal Dy. CIT, Central Circle-5(4) Room No.1927, 19th Floor, Mumbai Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Point, Mumbai-400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAGPC 9892 G (Assessee) : (…

DCIT-CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 6351/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM I.T.A. Nos. 6351 & 6704/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Dy. CIT, Central Circle-5(4) Shri Nitan Chhatwal Mumbai Room No.1927, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAGPC 9892 G (Revenue) : (Assessee) I.T.A. Nos. 6422 & 6423 /Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Shri Nitan Chhatwal Dy. CIT, Central Circle-5(4) Room No.1927, 19th Floor, Mumbai Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Point, Mumbai-400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAGPC 9892 G (Assessee) : (…

Raiyani Brothers, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(4), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 224/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.222-224/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08,2008-09 &2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Raiyani Brothers The Income Tax Officer, V 9, Dumaswala Compound, Ward-3(3)(4), Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Haribaug, Varachha Road, Gate, Surat. Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Jagasheth - CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr.-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ns must have a live link with the formation of the belief. This is supported by Circular No.549 dated 31.10.1989 which clarified that the words “reason to believe” did not mean a change of opinion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 has lucidly explained the power of assessing officer to bring to tax income escaping assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Court first held that the section provides that there must exist “reasons to believe” and not “reasons to suspect”. The following were the relevant observations: “The fact that the words "definite information" which wer…

Raiyani Brothers, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(4), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 223/SRT/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.222-224/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08,2008-09 &2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Raiyani Brothers The Income Tax Officer, V 9, Dumaswala Compound, Ward-3(3)(4), Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Haribaug, Varachha Road, Gate, Surat. Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Jagasheth - CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr.-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ns must have a live link with the formation of the belief. This is supported by Circular No.549 dated 31.10.1989 which clarified that the words “reason to believe” did not mean a change of opinion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 has lucidly explained the power of assessing officer to bring to tax income escaping assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Court first held that the section provides that there must exist “reasons to believe” and not “reasons to suspect”. The following were the relevant observations: “The fact that the words "definite information" which wer…

Raiyani Brothers, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(4), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 222/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.222-224/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08,2008-09 &2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Raiyani Brothers The Income Tax Officer, V 9, Dumaswala Compound, Ward-3(3)(4), Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Haribaug, Varachha Road, Gate, Surat. Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Jagasheth - CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr.-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ns must have a live link with the formation of the belief. This is supported by Circular No.549 dated 31.10.1989 which clarified that the words “reason to believe” did not mean a change of opinion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 has lucidly explained the power of assessing officer to bring to tax income escaping assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Court first held that the section provides that there must exist “reasons to believe” and not “reasons to suspect”. The following were the relevant observations: “The fact that the words "definite information" which wer…

Sarthak Real Built Pvt. Ltd, Indore vs. Dy, CIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

ITA 819/IND/2017[14-15--26Q/Q-4]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING ITA No.359 & 284/Ind/2017 & ITANo.819/Ind/2018 Assessment Year 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ferro Concrete Con. India Pvt. Ltd. 3/5/7-B, Bhagirathpura, Indore PAN :AAACF2726K : Appellant V/s DCIT-(Circle)-1(1) Indore : Respondent ITANo.439/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 DCIT-(Circle)-1(1) Indore : Appellant V/s Ferro Concrete Con. India Pvt. Ltd. 3/5/7-B, Bhagirathpura, Indore PAN : AAACF2726K : Responde…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 1 (1), Indore vs. M/S Ferro Concreate Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd Indore, Indore

ITA 439/IND/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING ITA No.359 & 284/Ind/2017 & ITANo.819/Ind/2018 Assessment Year 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ferro Concrete Con. India Pvt. Ltd. 3/5/7-B, Bhagirathpura, Indore PAN :AAACF2726K : Appellant V/s DCIT-(Circle)-1(1) Indore : Respondent ITANo.439/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 DCIT-(Circle)-1(1) Indore : Appellant V/s Ferro Concrete Con. India Pvt. Ltd. 3/5/7-B, Bhagirathpura, Indore PAN : AAACF2726K : Responde…

M/S. Ferro Concrete Con. India Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT Circle-1(1), Indore

ITA 359/IND/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING ITA No.359 & 284/Ind/2017 & ITANo.819/Ind/2018 Assessment Year 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ferro Concrete Con. India Pvt. Ltd. 3/5/7-B, Bhagirathpura, Indore PAN :AAACF2726K : Appellant V/s DCIT-(Circle)-1(1) Indore : Respondent ITANo.439/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 DCIT-(Circle)-1(1) Indore : Appellant V/s Ferro Concrete Con. India Pvt. Ltd. 3/5/7-B, Bhagirathpura, Indore PAN : AAACF2726K : Responde…

M/S. Ferro Concrete Con. India Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

ITA 284/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING ITA No.359 & 284/Ind/2017 & ITANo.819/Ind/2018 Assessment Year 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ferro Concrete Con. India Pvt. Ltd. 3/5/7-B, Bhagirathpura, Indore PAN :AAACF2726K : Appellant V/s DCIT-(Circle)-1(1) Indore : Respondent ITANo.439/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 DCIT-(Circle)-1(1) Indore : Appellant V/s Ferro Concrete Con. India Pvt. Ltd. 3/5/7-B, Bhagirathpura, Indore PAN : AAACF2726K : Responde…

Smt. Meenakshi Prakash Jadhav, Mumbai vs. ITO 21 (2)(3), Mumbai

Accordingly ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Meenakshi Prakash Jadhav, Income Tax Officer-21(2)(3), 175, 5Th Floor, 845, Shivneri Vs. Room No. 105, 1St Floor, Piramal Building, B.J. Marg, Byculla West, Chambers Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400011. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Acspj 3509 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Devendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay J. Sethi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay J. Sethi, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…neral, non-specific and distant; that there has to be a live link or direct nexus between the material and the reasons recorded fer reopening assessment under section 147. In this regard we rely on the following decisions: i. ITO v Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC); ii. S. P. Agarwalla v ITO [1983] 140 ITR 1010 (Cal); iii. ITO v Dwarka Dass & Brothers [1981] 131 ITR 571 (Del); iv. CIT v SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del); and v. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. V ITO (2011] 338 ITR 51 (Del). Further, Supreme Court in case of Sheo Nath Singh v Appellate Assistant Commissioner [1971] 82 ITR 147 (S…

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1298/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…ing officer unless the same is analysed and examined thoroughly and necessary linkage is established with the assessee. In this regard, useful reference can be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the following legal proposition (pg 448): “ As stated earlier, the reasons for the formation of the belief must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material comi…

Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…ing officer unless the same is analysed and examined thoroughly and necessary linkage is established with the assessee. In this regard, useful reference can be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the following legal proposition (pg 448): “ As stated earlier, the reasons for the formation of the belief must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material comi…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…of the power and no roving enquiry on vague-hunches or indeterminate and impertinent consideration is envisaged.” 52. The entire law as to what would constitute "reason to believe" was summed up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO v Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437. The following principles were laid down:- (a) The powers of the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment, though wide, are not plenary. (b) The words of the statute are "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". (c) The reopening of an assessment after the lapse of many years is a serious matter. Since the finality of a judicial or quasi-…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…of the power and no roving enquiry on vague-hunches or indeterminate and impertinent consideration is envisaged.” 52. The entire law as to what would constitute "reason to believe" was summed up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO v Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437. The following principles were laid down:- (a) The powers of the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment, though wide, are not plenary. (b) The words of the statute are "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". (c) The reopening of an assessment after the lapse of many years is a serious matter. Since the finality of a judicial or quasi-…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2)(3), Bangalore vs. Sri Made Gowda Thibbe Gowda, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 910/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP & Shri Ravi Kiran, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 148

…of the power and no roving enquiry on vague-hunches or indeterminate and impertinent consideration is envisaged.” 26. The entire law as to what would constitute "reason to believe" was summed up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO v Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437. The following principles were laid down:- (a) The powers of the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment, though wide, are not plenary. (b) The words of the statute are "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". (c) The reopening of an assessment after the lapse of many years is a serious matter. Since the finality of a judicial or quasi…

M/S. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…nderstood in contradistinction of suspicion or opinion. Belief indicates something concrete or reliable. Kindly refer Gangasharan & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO & Anr. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v/s Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) has held that “12. The powers of the ITO to reopen assessment, though wide, are not plenary. The words of the statute are "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". The reopening to the assessment after the lapse of many years is a serious matter. The Act, no doubt, contemplates the reopening of the assessment if grounds exist for beli…

Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 869/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

…and not "reason to suspect". The word “believe” has to be understood in contradistinction of suspicion or opinion. Belief indicates something concrete or reliable. Kindly refer Gangasharan & Sons Pvt. Ltd. 130 ITR 1 (SC), and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). 5.2The belief of the Officer should be as to escapement of income and the belief should not be a product of imagination or speculation. There must be reason to induce the belief. The Court can always examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the Court (Sheo Nath Singh…

Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 867/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

…and not "reason to suspect". The word “believe” has to be understood in contradistinction of suspicion or opinion. Belief indicates something concrete or reliable. Kindly refer Gangasharan & Sons Pvt. Ltd. 130 ITR 1 (SC), and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). 5.2The belief of the Officer should be as to escapement of income and the belief should not be a product of imagination or speculation. There must be reason to induce the belief. The Court can always examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the Court (Sheo Nath Singh…