← All Phrases

“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

Nishank Sakariya, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2343/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 2(47)(v)

Purchasers As per transfer of property, the LTCG on sale of land should have been admitted during A.Y. 2013-14. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income: In this case return of income was filed for the year under consideration and regular assessment ... section 147 of the Act. For aforesaid reasons it is not a case of change of opinion by the AO. Thus, I have reason to believe that income exceeding Rs.1,00,000/- has escaped assessment. The case of the assessee needs to be reopened within the meaning of section

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt

ITA 93/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklastaal 3H Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 Frefzor Af /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

passed on 24.10.2010 at Rs.85,13,49,090/-. Consequently, some information had come in possession of the revenue leading to formation of reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. Notice u/s 148 issued on 28.03.2015. Briefly put the reopening was done as the assessee had allegedly not discharged ... officer had expressed opinion on an issue that he was not fully aware of in the first place. He concluded that availability of “reasons to believe” is important rather than an established facts of escapement in any case for initiation of action u/s 148. Page - 4 - of 70 2.3 available

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 92/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

passed on 24.10.2010 at Rs.85,13,49,090/-. Consequently, some information had come in possession of the revenue leading to formation of reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. Notice u/s 148 issued on 28.03.2015. Briefly put the reopening was done as the assessee had allegedly not discharged ... officer had expressed opinion on an issue that he was not fully aware of in the first place. He concluded that availability of “reasons to believe” is important rather than an established facts of escapement in any case for initiation of action u/s 148. Page - 4 - of 70 ITA No.86

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

ITA 90/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2024 08.01.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. Appeal Nos. Ays Appellate Cit(A) Order Details Revenue A B C D E F 1

Section 143(3)Section 148

Order u/s. 143(3) was passed on 24.10.2010 at Consequently, some information had come in possession of the revenue leading to formation of reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. Notice u/s 148 issued on 28.03.2015. Briefly put the reopening was done as the assessee had allegedly not discharged ... officer had expressed opinion on an issue that he was not fully aware of in the first place. He concluded that availability of "reasons to believe” is important rather than an established facts of escapement in any case for initiation of action u/s 148. Page - 4 - of 70 ITA No.86

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

ITA 87/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. Appeal Nos. Ays Appellate Cit(A) Order Details Revenue A B C D E F 1 2 3

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 148

Order u/s. 143(3) was passed on 24.10.2010 at Consequently, some information had come in possession of the revenue leading to formation of reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. Notice u/s 148 issued on 28.03.2015. Briefly put the reopening was done as the assessee had allegedly not discharged ... officer had expressed opinion on an issue that he was not fully aware of in the first place. He concluded that availability of "reasons to believe” is important rather than an established facts of escapement in any case for initiation of action u/s 148. :- 5 -: ITA No.86 & 13 others /Chny/2018

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

ITA 86/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. Appeal Nos. Ays Appellate Cit(A) Order Details Revenue A B C D E F 1

Section 143(3)Section 148

Order u/s. 143(3) was passed on 24.10.2010 at Consequently, some information had come in possession of the revenue leading to formation of reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. Notice u/s 148 issued on 28.03.2015. Briefly put the reopening was done as the assessee had allegedly not discharged ... officer had expressed opinion on an issue that he was not fully aware of in the first place. He concluded that availability of "reasons to believe” is important rather than an established facts of escapement in any case for initiation of action u/s 148. Page

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt

ITA 496/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklastaal 3H Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 Frefzor Af /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

passed on 24.10.2010 at Rs.85,13,49,090/-. Consequently, some information had come in possession of the revenue leading to formation of reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. Notice u/s 148 issued on 28.03.2015. Briefly put the reopening was done as the assessee had allegedly not discharged ... officer had expressed opinion on an issue that he was not fully aware of in the first place. He concluded that availability of “reasons to believe” is important rather than an established facts of escapement in any case for initiation of action u/s 148. Page - 4 - of 70 2.3 available

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 495/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

passed on 24.10.2010 at Rs.85,13,49,090/-. Consequently, some information had come in possession of the revenue leading to formation of reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. Notice u/s 148 issued on 28.03.2015. Briefly put the reopening was done as the assessee had allegedly not discharged ... officer had expressed opinion on an issue that he was not fully aware of in the first place. He concluded that availability of “reasons to believe” is important rather than an established facts of escapement in any case for initiation of action u/s 148. Page - 4 - of 70 ITA No.86

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 494/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

passed on 24.10.2010 at Rs.85,13,49,090/-. Consequently, some information had come in possession of the revenue leading to formation of reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. Notice u/s 148 issued on 28.03.2015. Briefly put the reopening was done as the assessee had allegedly not discharged ... officer had expressed opinion on an issue that he was not fully aware of in the first place. He concluded that availability of “reasons to believe” is important rather than an established facts of escapement in any case for initiation of action u/s 148. Page - 4 - of 70 ITA No.86

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 493/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Appeal Nos. B

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

Order u/s.143(3) was passed on 24.10.2010 at Consequently, some information had come in possession of the revenue leading to formation of reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. Notice u/s 148 issued on 28.03.2015. Briefly put the reopening was done as the assessee had allegedly not discharged ... officer had expressed opinion on an issue that he was not fully aware of in the first place. He concluded that availability of "reasons to believe” is important rather than an established facts of escapement in any case for initiation of action u/s 148. Page

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 492/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2024 08.01.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

Order u/s.143(3) was passed on 24.10.2010 at Consequently, some information had come in possession of the revenue leading to formation of reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. Notice u/s 148 issued on 28.03.2015. Briefly put the reopening was done as the assessee had allegedly not discharged ... officer had expressed opinion on an issue that he was not fully aware of in the first place. He concluded that availability of "reasons to believe" is important rather than an established facts of escapement in any case for initiation of action u/s 148. Page

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 491/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2024 08.01.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellate D Cit(A) Order Details E Revenue F 1

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

Order u/s.143(3) was passed on 24.10.2010 at Consequently, some information had come in possession of the revenue leading to formation of reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. Notice u/s 148 issued on 28.03.2015. Briefly put the reopening was done as the assessee had allegedly not discharged ... officer had expressed opinion on an issue that he was not fully aware of in the first place. He concluded that availability of "reasons to believe” is important rather than an established facts of escapement in any case for initiation of action u/s 148. Page

Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

escaped assessment. The AO is required to form prima facie opinion based on tangible material which provides the nexus or the link having reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The AO was also required to examine whether the cash deposits were disclosed in the return of income ... form an opinion that income has escaped assessment. The power to reopen an assessment is conditional on the formation of a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The power is not akin to a review. The existence of tangible material is 17 Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi

Soyala Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Limited, Tonk vs. ITO, Tonk

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1116/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 80A(5)Section 80P

course of proceedings under section 147, the AO were to come to conclusion, that any income chargeable to tax, Which, according to his "reason to believe", had escaped assessment for any assessment year, did not escape assessment, then, the mere fact, that the AO entertained a reason to believe, albeit ... even a genuine reason to believe, would not continue to vest him with the jurisdiction, to subject to tax, any other income, chargeable to tax, which the AO may find to have escaped assessment, and which may come to his notice subsequently, in the course of proceedings under section

Lanco Rithwik Joint Venture, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 897/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena,Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

ICICI Bank during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. In view of the above information, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Therefore, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/sec.147 of the Act and issued notice u/sec.148

Pallav, Jamnagar vs. DCIT, Circle 2, Jamnagar

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

ITA 473/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal & Shri Brijesh ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

that section 147 of the Act, lays down that the reopening the assessment can be done by the Assessing Officer, if he has ‘reason to believe’ that the income has escaped assessment. Escapement of income chargeable to tax can be due to not filing of return of income ... satisfied himself about the re-opening of the case. The Income Tax Act, envisages that the assessing officer should only have a reason to believe to re-open a case, he need not establish beyond doubt that there is escapement of income before issuing the notice. The assessing officer

Shri Rajeshkumar Maheshbhai Manek, Anjar Kutch vs. The ITO Ward-2, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, additional legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal & Shri Brijesh ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

above facts/material available on records and after analyzing the same, the above mentioned transactions remained undisclosed for FY 2011-12. Therefore, I have reason to believe and am satisfied that income of assessee to the extent of Rs. 41,83,900/-has escaped assessment for AY 2012-13 within ... year under consideration and no assessment U/s 143(3)/147 was made and the only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above.” 10. From the above reasons recorded by the assessing officer, under section 147 of the Act, it is vivid that

DCIT It 3 3 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Pramarica Aspf II Cyprus Holding Ltd, Ctprus

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3041/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Shri YogeshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 148

Proviso to section 147 which reads as under is applicable in assessee's case – Income escaping assessment. 147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections ... possession of any new tangible material in his possession on which he could form a belief and had reason to believe that income has escaped assessment for AY. 2013-14. Therefore, notice u/s.148 and consequent order u/s. 147 is quashed and set aside.” 12. It is an undisputed fact

DCIT It 332 Mumbai, Income Tax vs. Pramarica Aspf II Cyprus Holding Ltd, Cyprus

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3040/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Shri YogeshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 148

Proviso to section 147 which reads as under is applicable in assessee's case – Income escaping assessment. 147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections ... possession of any new tangible material in his possession on which he could form a belief and had reason to believe that income has escaped assessment for AY. 2013-14. Therefore, notice u/s.148 and consequent order u/s. 147 is quashed and set aside.” 12. It is an undisputed fact

Sri Madhappa Siva, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 2327/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2327/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Madhappa Siva, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.16, Vs. Ward-1, Vivekanandha Nagar, Hosur. Avalapalli Road, Hosur – 635 109. Pan: Dghps 6254J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

namely AY 2012-13. Since the assessee did not file the return of income for the assessment year 2012-13, the AO had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and so, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2019. The assessee did not respond to the notice