“reason to believe”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1474,202 judgments

The decision most relied on for reason to believe is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reason to believe

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,673

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More

82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court

1,579

citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court

1,030

citing judgments

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.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO

236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court

862

citing judgments

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

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das

103 ITR 437 · 1976 · Supreme Court

721

citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.

331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court

694

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court

471

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

256 ITR 1 · 2002 · High Court

439

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment under Section 147 based on a mere change of opinion regarding the same material available during the original assessment. Reopening requires fresh, tangible material or information that leads to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment.

Judgments citing reason to believe

Mittal Cotspin Limited, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 950/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 950/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Mittal Cotspin Ltd., The Ito, St. No. 1, Opp. Govt. Primary Vs Ward 2(5), High School, Madhopouri, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagcm7124G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca, Shri Aditya Sood, Ca & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri Aditya Sood, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

account of accommodation entries from Shell companies during F.Y 2014-15 relevant to the A.Y. 2015-16. Therefore, I have sufficient form of 'Reason to believe' to frame my opinion. The information available with this office has been analyzed and I have framed my opinion after due application ... assessee has received the accommodation entries on account of bogus unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 1,79,80,000/-. Therefore, I have reason to believe that an amount of Rs.1,79,80,000/-received on account of bogus unsecured loan as well as other income which comes to the notice

Ba Continuum India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 368/HYD/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 40

reasons for re-opening the assessment and hence, it is a mere change of opinion, and the Ld. AO does not have any reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. c) There was no income which has escaped assessment as the reimbursements made by the Company

Incometax Officer Exemptions Ward, Tirunelveli vs. Aark India Educational Charitable Trust, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal of the asse

ITA 2387/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shris.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 1986/Chny/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aark India Educational V. Income Tax Officer Charitable Trust, (Exemptions Ward) Nellai 1 1 Francis Xavier Engineering City Centre, Rahmath Nagar, College Campus, Vannarapettai, Tiruchendur Road, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu Tirunelveli Tamil Nadu- 627003 627011 [Pan: Aacta 2809 D] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) (!"यथ /Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 2387/Chny/2025 (Revenue Appeal) "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer (Exemptions Aark India Educational Ward) Nellai City Centre, Rahmath Charitable Trust, Nagar, Tiruchendur Road, 1 1 Francis Xavier Tirunelveli Tamil Nadu-627011 Engineering College Campus, Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu-627003 [Pan: Aacta 2809 D] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) (!"यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क$ओरसे/Appellant/Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit !"यथ क$ओरसे/Respondent/Revenue By सुनवाईक$तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2026

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A

Section 12ASection 133A

cial year 2011-12 in the names of the same former 12 in the names of the same former trustees. Consequently, there was reason to believe that income trustees. Consequently, there was reason to believe that income trustees. Consequently, there was reason to believe that income chargeable

M/S. Aark India Educational Trust, Tirunelveli vs. ITO (Exemptions), Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal of the asse

ITA 1986/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A

Section 12ASection 133A

Southern Enterprises, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Ward 22, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2941/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sanchitha for Mr. R. SivaramanFor Respondent: Mr. Praveen. S, JCIT

Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessing Officer cannot act in the matter of reopening of assessment beyond four years, unless he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. He submitted that

Kalpana Ramesh Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4597/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri Mani Jain a/w Shri Prateek

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee had traded in the shares of Toyam Industries Ltd., a company purportedly managed by accommodation entry providers, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021 2.3 In response thereto ... reopening is founded on reasons which are factually incorrect, vague, and mechanically recorded, and therefore fail to satisfy the statutory requirement of “reason to believe” as contemplated under section 147 of the Act. It was contended that the entire reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Kalpana

Kalpana Ramesh Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4596/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee had traded in the shares of Toyam Industries Ltd., a company purportedly managed by accommodation entry providers, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021 2.3 In response thereto ... reopening is founded on reasons which are factually incorrect, vague, and mechanically recorded, and therefore fail to satisfy the statutory requirement of “reason to believe" as contemplated under section 147 of the Act. It was contended that the entire reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed

Kalpana Ramesh Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4595/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri Mani Jain a/w Shri Prateek

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Farook Shaikh, North Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), North Goa

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

ITA 406/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 406/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2016-17) Farook Shaikh, National Faceless Vs H.No.961, Assessment Centre, . Near Syndicate Bank, New Delhi-110003. Sanquelim, North Goa-403505, Goa. Pan.No.Fstps6016N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Sanket Bakshi.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec147 R,W,S144 & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) In Not Condoning The Delay In Filling The Appeal & Sustaining The Addition Of Unexplained Investment U/Sec69 Of The Act By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is In Employment Outside India & Has Not Filed The Return Of Income. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Based On The Information From Ddit(Inv) Bangalore In Respect Of Search

Section 144Section 69

Mr.Mohammed Mansor Khan engaged in business of various investment scheme find that the assessee has invested Rs.10Lakhs on 19.08.2015.The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act and further notices u/sec142(1) of the Act are issued to furnish

Devkrupa International, Bhavnagar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle -1 Bhavnagar, Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 820/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaldevkrupa International, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Shop No.1 Navkar Tower, Of Income-Tax Circle-1, Kalubha Road, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar – 364001 [Pan: Aaefd0184G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

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

provisions of the IT Act, 1961. It is suppression of fact on the part of the assessee. 6. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income: Therefore, I have reason to believe, that income of Rs.71,42,500/- which is chargeable to tax has escaped assessment ... scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made. Accordingly, in this case, the only requirement to initiate proceeding u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above. (refer paragraphs 6). It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee filed return of income

ACIT, Circle 24(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Nilkamal Crates & Containers, Mumbai

ITA 3763/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, AdvFor Respondent: C.O. No. 146/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 3763/Mum/2025

Section 132Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

curable under section 292B. It was the submission that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that re-assessment would be valid if “reason to believe” exists, even during the pending proceedings. It was the submission that the approval may be treated from the specified authority being the minor mistake

Mr. Ashish Ramesh Ajmera, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward 1, Dhule

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2506/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2506/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Ashish Ramesh Ajmera, V Income Tax Officer, Plot No.17, Ashish Saraswati S Ward-1, Dhule. Colony, Vidhyanagri, Dhule – 424005 Pan: Aaopa3375J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 09/12/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 02/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Panaji Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 29.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Act, Dated 14.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

allowed U/s. 139 of I.T. Act 1961. Therefore the income chargeable to tax for A.Y. 2013-14 has escaped assessment. ii. I have reason to believe that the Income of the assessee amounting to Rs.4152324/- has escaped assessment for the AY 2013-14 within in the meaning of clause ... allowed U/s. 139 of I.T. Act 1961. Therefore the income chargeable to tax for A.Y. 2013-14 has escaped assessment. ii. I have reason to believe that the Income of the assessee amounting to Rs.4152324/- has escaped assessment for the AY 2013-14 within in the meaning of clause

Aryan Share and Stock Brokers Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 1(1) Che, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2756/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Praveen Kumar BansalFor Respondent: Mr.Kumar Chandan, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

section 147 of the Act. According to the Ld.AR, as per Section 147 of the Act, the AO should record the ‘reason to believe escapement of income’ which is an essential condition precedent for invoking jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Shri Bansal explained, “reason to believe, postulates foundation based ... present case, a reading of the reasons recorded would reveal that the AO had only reason to suspect and not reasons to believe escapement of income. Hence, according to him, the essential condition precedent has not been satisfied before the AO had assumed the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Hence

Mystical Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is Allowed

ITA 5222/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalι.Τ.Α. No.5222/Mum/2024 A.Y: 2011-12 Mystical Pvt Ltd Constructions A 603, A1 Akbar Bldg, Pe Road, Momin Nagar, Jogeswari (W), Mumbai - 400102 Pan - Aaccn5191N (Appellant) Vs Dcit, Circle 5(2)(1) Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai. (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Simran Dhawan A/W Mr. Ravi Gantara Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 Order Per: Shri. Sandeep Gosain, J.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt. 06.08.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)Section 274

Therefore, according to the Ld. AR, there is no live link between the 'information received' and the 'reason to believe' that the income of the appellant has escaped assessment and on the contrary, it is a clear case of borrowed satisfaction and non-application of own mind on pre-concluded ... before the issue of the notice u/s 148, we are of the considered view that the same did not constitute the 'reason to believe' that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment for the year under consideration, the AO failed to conduct any enquiry to create a necessary 'live