Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC

82 ITR 147Supreme Court of India1971#793 most cited

What is Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC authority for?

To initiate reassessment under Section 147/148, the Income Tax Officer must have an honest and reasonable 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, based on cogent grounds and not mere suspicion. Reassessment is invalid if based only on a lack of analysis during the original assessment without new material.

129

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC · 82 ITR 147 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · income escaping assessment · reopening of assessment · mere suspicion · cogent grounds · lack of analysis · reassessment validity · mechanical approval

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 139(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 151Section 131Section 144

Issues it is cited on

live linkthird party informationsection 148(2)jdasection 158bcreason to believeescapement of incomekelvinatorinterest u/s 234aincome escaping assessmentreopening of assessmentchange of opinion

Judgments citing Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 47/BANG/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 69

…ent case, it is established that the AO did not have any ‘reason to believe’ as judicially interpreted by various courts. So the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 is bad in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate 17. Asstt. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC) observed as under:- "There can be no manner of doubt that the words "reason to believe" suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the Income-tax Officer may act on direct or circumstances evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The Income-tax Officer would be…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 46/BANG/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 69

…ent case, it is established that the AO did not have any ‘reason to believe’ as judicially interpreted by various courts. So the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 is bad in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate 17. Asstt. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC) observed as under:- "There can be no manner of doubt that the words "reason to believe" suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the Income-tax Officer may act on direct or circumstances evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The Income-tax Officer would be…

Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…easons to believe' under Section 147 of the Act. The Court relied upon the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in A.N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO [1958] 34 ITR 275 (SC), S. Narayanappa v. CIT(1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC), Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Asstt. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das[1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). The Court has also discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra). It must be noted at this stage that the Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) was a case one where the initial return was picked up for scrutiny and an assessment order passed under Section 1…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…easons to believe' under Section 147 of the Act. The Court relied upon the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in A.N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO [1958] 34 ITR 275 (SC), S. Narayanappa v. CIT(1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC), Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Asstt. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das[1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). The Court has also discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra). It must be noted at this stage that the Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) was a case one where the initial return was picked up for scrutiny and an assessment order passed under Section 1…

Shri Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…easons to believe' under Section 147 of the Act. The Court relied upon the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in A.N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO [1958] 34 ITR 275 (SC), S. Narayanappa v. CIT(1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC), Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Asstt. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das[1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). The Court has also discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra). It must be noted at this stage that the Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) was a case one where the initial return was picked up for scrutiny and an assessment order passed under Section 1…

ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. J.B. Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and 2cross-objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 6297/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 6297/ Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-6(3)(3) बिधम/ M/S. J. B. Technologies Pvt. R. No.576, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai- 3, Narayan Building, 23, L. 400020. N. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400014. C. O. No. 68/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 6297/Mum/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. J. B. Technologies Pvt. बिधम/ Ito-6(3)(3) Ltd. R. No.576, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 3, Narayan Building, 23, L. M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. N. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400014. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj5208P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal & Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 22.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10. Ita. No.6297/Mum/2016 Co No. 68/Mum/2018 A.Y.2009-10 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Against The Order Dated 22.08.2016 Passed By The Cit(A)-12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…he appellant. The words 'reason to believe' suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Nath Singh reported in 82 ITR 147 held as under :- "The reasons recorded for the ITO's belief were (1) The assessee who Was at the relevant time a managing director in about a dozen limited companies along with 'Obetois was believed to have made some secret profits which were not offered for assessment, and (2) the assessee was believed to have received a sum of Rs. 22 lakhs from…

Smt. Muktaben Nishantbhai Patel, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 6/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…e, the requirements of section 147 of the Act were not satisfied and, therefore, the reasons recorded by the assessing officer are not valid, for this reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Nath Singh Vs. ACIT, 82 ITR 147(SC) wherein it was held as follows: “All that have been found in the records are reports in Form "B" made in connection with starting of proceedings under section 34(1A), each report relating to a different assessment year.Items (7) and (8) of thisForm relate tobrief reasons for starting proceedings and whether the Central Board of Revenue was sat…

Shri Nishant Kantilal Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 5/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…e, the requirements of section 147 of the Act were not satisfied and, therefore, the reasons recorded by the assessing officer are not valid, for this reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Nath Singh Vs. ACIT, 82 ITR 147(SC) wherein it was held as follows: “All that have been found in the records are reports in Form "B" made in connection with starting of proceedings under section 34(1A), each report relating to a different assessment year.Items (7) and (8) of thisForm relate tobrief reasons for starting proceedings and whether the Central Board of Revenue was sat…

Shri Nishant Kantilal Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 10/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…e, the requirements of section 147 of the Act were not satisfied and, therefore, the reasons recorded by the assessing officer are not valid, for this reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Nath Singh Vs. ACIT, 82 ITR 147(SC) wherein it was held as follows: “All that have been found in the records are reports in Form "B" made in connection with starting of proceedings under section 34(1A), each report relating to a different assessment year.Items (7) and (8) of thisForm relate tobrief reasons for starting proceedings and whether the Central Board of Revenue was sat…

Smt. Meera Devi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 256/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 Cuke Meera Devi, I.T.O., Vs. 772, Sindhi Colony, Raja Ward 6(1), Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Afnpd 6394 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Tanuj Agarwal (Fca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement :11/11/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal (FCA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The AO would be acting without jurisdiction if the reasons for his belief that the conditions are satisfied does not exist or is not material or relevant to the belief required by the section - Sheo Nath Singh Vs. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC). In view of the reasons stated above, it is humbly requested that the notice for reassessment issued u/s 147 and proceedings in consequence thereof may kindly be quashed as illegal. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR has relied on the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). She has also submitted that the A.O. has reopened the assessment proceedings…

Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 2350/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 2350/Mum/2013 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2007-08) Vodafone Idea Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of (Successor To Aditya Birla Telecom Income Tax Limited) Aayaker Bhavan, M.K. Road, बिाम/ 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Churchgate, Mumbai Vs. Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacb2100P अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Michael Jerald, Sr.Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2020 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, SR.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of the question of nondisclosure of material fact by the assessee. He also relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v/s. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR Vodafone Idea Limited ; AY 07-08 297(SC) and Sheo Nath Singh vs. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 and ITO vs. Selvted Balurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd., 217 ITR 597 (SC). Under the circumstances, this is not a case of ‘change of opinion’ but a valid case of subsequent developments. The LAO, therefore, validly assumed the jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act. 5.2.3. Regarding the LAPs alternate argument that the reassessment wa…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

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

ITA 1764/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…reported in 159 ITR 956 has held as under: 15 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. "reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. The Apex court reiterated its view expressed in the case of Sheo Nath Singh v AAC, 82 ITR 147". [iv] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt Ltd vs ITO and Others [130 ITR 1] has reiterated that : "It is well settled as a result of several decisions of this court that two distinct conditions must be satisfied before. the Income-tax Officer can assume jurisdiction to issue notice under s. 147(a). First, he must have reason to…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

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

ITA 1763/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…reported in 159 ITR 956 has held as under: 15 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. "reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. The Apex court reiterated its view expressed in the case of Sheo Nath Singh v AAC, 82 ITR 147". [iv] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt Ltd vs ITO and Others [130 ITR 1] has reiterated that : "It is well settled as a result of several decisions of this court that two distinct conditions must be satisfied before. the Income-tax Officer can assume jurisdiction to issue notice under s. 147(a). First, he must have reason to…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

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

ITA 1762/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…reported in 159 ITR 956 has held as under: 15 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. "reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. The Apex court reiterated its view expressed in the case of Sheo Nath Singh v AAC, 82 ITR 147". [iv] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt Ltd vs ITO and Others [130 ITR 1] has reiterated that : "It is well settled as a result of several decisions of this court that two distinct conditions must be satisfied before. the Income-tax Officer can assume jurisdiction to issue notice under s. 147(a). First, he must have reason to…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

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

ITA 1766/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…reported in 159 ITR 956 has held as under: 15 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. "reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. The Apex court reiterated its view expressed in the case of Sheo Nath Singh v AAC, 82 ITR 147". [iv] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt Ltd vs ITO and Others [130 ITR 1] has reiterated that : "It is well settled as a result of several decisions of this court that two distinct conditions must be satisfied before. the Income-tax Officer can assume jurisdiction to issue notice under s. 147(a). First, he must have reason to…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

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

ITA 1765/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…reported in 159 ITR 956 has held as under: 15 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. "reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. The Apex court reiterated its view expressed in the case of Sheo Nath Singh v AAC, 82 ITR 147". [iv] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt Ltd vs ITO and Others [130 ITR 1] has reiterated that : "It is well settled as a result of several decisions of this court that two distinct conditions must be satisfied before. the Income-tax Officer can assume jurisdiction to issue notice under s. 147(a). First, he must have reason to…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

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

ITA 1761/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…reported in 159 ITR 956 has held as under: 15 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. "reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. The Apex court reiterated its view expressed in the case of Sheo Nath Singh v AAC, 82 ITR 147". [iv] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt Ltd vs ITO and Others [130 ITR 1] has reiterated that : "It is well settled as a result of several decisions of this court that two distinct conditions must be satisfied before. the Income-tax Officer can assume jurisdiction to issue notice under s. 147(a). First, he must have reason to…

M/S Safe Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1293/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…n the findings of the ld. CIT(A) which reads as under:- “2.3.2. The belief of the AO is clearly that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds as upheld in the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC) that the words ‘reasons to believe’ suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds, and that the ITO may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The ITO would be acting without jurisdiction if the reason for his belief that the conditions are…

Huron Builders Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 6(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal is allowed on this preliminary

ITA 6251/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Garg, Adv. & Shri AkarshFor Respondent: Ms. Sugandha Sharma, Sr.D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…of Indra Prastha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2004) 271 ITR 113, wherein their lordships after visiting various case laws decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court, like; Sheonath Singh vs. Appellate Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1971) 82 ITR 147; ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in (1976) 1043 ITR 437; and Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in (1981) 130 ITR 1, held as under: - “Thus, it is well settled that the “reason to believe” under section 147 must be held in good faith and should have a rational connection and relevant bearing on the formation of the belief and sho…

M/S Manish Finlease (P) Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Patna

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

…Y. Rajanv.lTO [1970] 77 ITR 839(AP).The belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the ITO may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour—SheoNath Singh v. AAC [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), Asoke Kumar Sen v. ITO [1981] 132 ITR 707 (Delhi), Manikonda Venkata Narasimhamv. CIT [I960] 39 ITR 575 (AP), R.S. ChiranjiLal& Sons v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 407 (Punj.), Birds Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 55 ITR 285 (Cat.) and Bhagwan Industries (P.) Ltd. v. CST [1970] 25 STC 420 (All) The expression does not mean a purely subjective satisfac…