“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

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. N K Proteins Pvt. Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 339/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 43(5)

tangible material available with the Assessing Officer based on the same materials, which were relied at the time of original assessment proceedings, has reason to believe that there is escapement of income. Therefore, in this circumstances, we are of the view that, the material available with the Assessing Officer ... Officer while framing an assessment under Section 147 of the Act, to assess or reassess such income for which he had recorded his reasons to believe had escaped assessment and also any other income which escaped assessment which came to his notice subsequently in the course of the assessment proceedings

Dcitcc6.2, Mumbai vs. Top Class Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee i

ITA 974/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ld. A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. CIT DR

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

year in question within the meaning of the provision of section 147 of the Act. 4. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs.13,35,40,318/- (Rs.12,59,00,000/- + Rs.76,40,318/-) has escaped within ... year in question within the meaning of the provision of section 147 of the Act. 4. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs.13,35,40,318/- (Rs.12,59,00,000/- + Rs.76,40,318/-) has escaped within

Top Class Capital Markets Private Limited, Bombay Mutual Building, Fort vs. ACIT Central Circle 6 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee i

ITA 709/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

year in question within the meaning of the provision of section 147 of the Act. 4. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax to the tune Rs. 13,35,40,318/- (Rs.12,59,00,000/- + Rs.76,40,318/-) has escaped within ... year in question within the meaning of the provision of section 147 of the Act. 4. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs.13,35,40,318/- (Rs.12,59,00,000/- + Rs.76,40,318/-) has escaped within

Himar Specialty Chemicals Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 4519/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 147Section 148Section 35A

legally not tenable because addition was made and assessment was reopened only on the basis of statement of one person. Since the reason to believe for escapement of income is not proper, reopening itself is invalid. The appellant contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that there is only reason

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 4326/MUM/2005[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel and Charu MittalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

technical know-how profits from trading goods. This resulted into excess deduction u/s. 80HH, 80HHC and 80-IA. I have therefore reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A. Y. 1996-97 and therefore the assessment is required to be re-opened in view ofExplanation ... other income and profits from trading goods. This resulted into excess deduction u/s. 80HH, 80HHC and 80-TA. I have therefore reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A.Y. 1997-98 and therefore the assessment is required to be re-opened in view of Explanation

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 4325/MUM/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel and Charu MittalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 4235/MUM/2005[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel and Charu MittalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 4234/MUM/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel and Charu MittalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

Covai Marketing, Salem vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 745/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.701, 743 To 745/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S. Covai Marketing, The Dcit, 16/30, Meyyanur Road, Circle-1(1), Salem-636 004. Salem. [Pan: Aagfc 9345 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

source of cash deposits during the demonetization period of Rs.19,28,069/-is to be verified. Therefore, I have the reason to believe that income taxable under Income Tax Act, 1961 had escaped Assessment within the meaning of provisions of section

Covai Marketing, Salem vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 744/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Covai Marketing, Salem vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 743/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Covai Marketing, Salem vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 701/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

ACIT, Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara Prime City Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 1301/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shaily Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

received by the AO from the Additional Director of Investigation Wing, but the AO has also independently applied his mind and has recorded reasons to believe that income in the case of assessee has escaped assessment. The ld. DR prayed for quashing findings of the CIT(A) and upholding validity ... floor, Kamalalaya Centre, Kolkata of Rs. 20,00,00,000/- during the F.Y. 2009-2010 relevant to A.Y. 2010-11. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income in the case of the assessee has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2010-11 and it is a fit case for issue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 1437/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1437/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 46/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Cholamandalam Ms Of Income Tax, V. General Insurance Company Non-Corporate Circle -8, Limited, Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, No.2, Dare House, Chenai Annexe Building, G.P.O., Parrys, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai - 600 001. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc-6633-K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Ms. Kamakshi, Advocate For Mr. Sandeepbagmar, Advocate Department By : Mr.Nilaybaransom, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Aredirected Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 07.03.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) In

For Appellant: Ms. Kamakshi, Advocate forFor Respondent: Mr.NilayBaranSom, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री महावीर सिंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवं

Subhash Sharma, Belurmath vs. ACIT, Cir. 47, Kolkata

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

ITA 435/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 69A

been issued to the AO of Smt. Kalavati Devi. Thereafter, the ld. AO has recorded that the assessee did not provide any plausible reason to believe that the impugned funds were obtained in the course of normal lending of funds between mother and son. Needless to say, the addition

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. K.C.P.Shivaraman, Karur

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2183/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2183/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri K.C.P. Shivaraman बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), #330, Chinna Andan Koil Road, Vs. Chennai. Karur-639 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaxps-4844-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147

provisions of Sections 148 to 153. However, the use of this power is conditional upon the fact that the assessing officer has some reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. The use of the words 'reason to believe' in Section 147 has to be interpreted schematically ... India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561/187 Taxman 312 (SC) wherein this Court has held as under:— '5….where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re- open the assessment. Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to re-open is much wider. However

Nita Padamchand Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-24(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3122/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K(SMC)" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Pardeshi

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

under Section 147, when the jurisdictional conditions were not satisfied. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147, without having any ‘reason to believe’ that income has escaped assessment. 3. The Assessing Officer erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147, as the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis ... stock script remains undisclosed and the same are required to be considered in computing total income of the assessee. 4. Basis of forming reason to believe – In this case, the assessee has traded in penny stock script as mentioned in para 2, to avail LTCG/ Short Term Capital Loss/Business Loss

Aro Equipments Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2514/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 148

issued notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (‘Act’ for short) stating that he has reason to believe that the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 12,27,144/- has escaped assessment. Thereafter the Ld.AO made additions to the tune

Csquare Retail India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi, Howrah

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

ITA 976/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 976/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Csquare Retail India Pvt. Acit, Ltd. Vs Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant C/O Sbav & Associates Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income- 7/1A Grant Lane, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Officer, National Faceless Room No.202, Assessment Centre, Delhi Kolkata-700012 अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vinit Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Loviesh Shelley, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

parte without adjudicating ground of appeal for action of the Assessing Officer without first supplying the documents which forms the basis of reason to believe in issuing notice u/s 148 is bad in law. Tax Effect - N.A. 10. For that in the facts

Pradip Chandra Roy, Siliguri vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Siliguri

ITA 1416/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

address registered in the e-filing Portal, the notice was served to the assessee on 28.12.2021 by affixation by the departmental Inspector. The reason to believe that your income chargeable to tax for the AY 2014-15 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section