← 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

Dalbir Singh, Pinjore, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panchkula

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for

ITA 76/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D.Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148

That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in as much as there has been no reason to believe that there was an escapement of income in as much as the reasons recorded arc based only on borrowed information and as such the assessment

The DCIT, Circle (International Taxation), Chandigarh vs. Sh. Manjeet Singh, Ludhiana

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed whereas, Cross

ITA 512/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 512/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Vs. Shri Manjeet Singh, बनाम Circle (International S/O Shri Harbir Singh Taxation), # 1460, Ward Number-8, Chandigarh Gahlewal, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdeps4087A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 13/Chd/2022 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 512/Chd/2022) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Manjeet Singh, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम S/O Shri Harbir Singh Circle (International # 1460, Ward Number-8, Taxation ), Gahlewal, Chandigarh Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdeps4087A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharamvir, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

Delhi has rightly quashed the assessment as framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)/148 on the issue of wrong reasons to believe and non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer as per the finding of the CIT(A) given in para 5.9 onwards of the order ... Assessing Officer had not-passed a speaking order on the valid objections raised by the assessee and, thus, since there was no valid reason to believe and the Assessing Officer only relied upon the report of the investigationWing, the same is not permissible in view of the judgment

Team Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 4453/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 68

reopening assessment under old regime. (i) section 147 allows the assessing officer to reassess any income chargeable to tax if the officer had ‘reasons to believe’ that such income escaped assessment. (ii) The assessing officer has to ensure that the notice u/s. 148 was issued within the time limit prescribed ... finance Act 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021. However, there is no dispute that the instant appeal shall be governed by the old regime. “Reason to believe” requires schematic interpretation. The assessing officer has power to reopen provided therein a tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement

Lake View Filling Station, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 944/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Lake View Filling Station, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Warangal. Ward – 1, Warangal. Pan : Aamfm5191J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate (Appeared Through Virtual Hearing) Revenue By: Shri U. Mini Chandran, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 14.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri U. Mini Chandran, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

return of income and the cash deposits therein during demonetization. In view of the above, Assessing Officer opined that there was reason to believe that there 2 was an escapement of income of Rs.28,26,000/- from assessment and hence, issued notice

Shahnaz Khan, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur

ITA 1137/JPR/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 253(5)Section 5Section 50C

Assessing Officer grossly erred in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is issued without jurisdiction, without any reason to believe and the entire proceedings of reassessment deserves to be quashed. 1.1 That in law and in the facts and in circumstances of the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Futura Travels Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 723/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

after making various disallowances and additions. Case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 31.03.2016. Reason to believe recorded by the Ld. Assessing Officer prior to issue of notice is reproduced below: Reason for reopening In this case assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C ... account, however no TDS has been deducted from these payments. Considering the above facts, I have reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs. 12,45,94,612/- and interest on loan for prior period has escaped assessment for the A.Y 2011-12 in the case

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Ashok Jasraj Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3839/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

property purchased to the tune of Rs 3.44 crores remains unexplained and found suspicious. In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that substantial income chargeable to tax i.e., Rs 3,44,27,000/- has escaped assessment for AY 2011-12 in term of provisions of section ... said objections after citing certain decisions and held that reopening has been done on the basis of credible information received which form sufficient reason to believe. His entire order disposing objection contains extracts of judgments only. 6. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, assessee stated that assessee has taken

Dinesh Prabhudas Hingoo, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-31(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 667/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250

Assessee has also dealt in shares of M/s. Nivyah and claimed LTCG as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act, formed a reason to believe that income earned by the Assessee in the form of LTCG exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act has escaped assessment and therefore recorded ... where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 8. On the basis of the information made available and further enquiry done, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax of more than Rs. one lakh has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part

DCIT 41(4)(1), Room No, Kautilya Bhawan, G Block, Bkc, Mumbai vs. Dinesh Prabhudas Hingoo, Jogeshwari(W), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1348/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250

Assessee has also dealt in shares of M/s. Nivyah and claimed LTCG as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act, formed a reason to believe that income earned by the Assessee in the form of LTCG exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act has escaped assessment and therefore recorded ... where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 8. On the basis of the information made available and further enquiry done, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax of more than Rs. one lakh has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part

Vinit Kumar Arora, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Spm Civic Centre Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1676/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Kumar Niranjan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 44A

should be reheard. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee has sufficient documentary evidences and has reason to believe that after assessment the demand raised shall be reduced to zero. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that there is no accumulation

Nirmal Singh, Ayodhya vs. ITO Ward-1, Faizabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria & Sa. No. 07/Lkw/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.83/Lkw/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Nirmal Singh The Income Tax Officer, V. 15/2/16, Janki Ghat, Ayodhya- Ward-1, 224123, Faizabad (Up). Cinema Road, Faizabad- New-224001. Pan:Bdsps4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 10 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

reassessment framed thereafter are all contrary to the provision of law and be quashed. 3. Because there being no material to form reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, the reassessment framed under section 147 read with section 144B is bad in law void ab initio and be quashed

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Shamkant Keshav Kotkar, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2422/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ch. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 801Section 801B(10)Section 80I

income of Rs.4,27,34,408.for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) which included Rs.42,95,000 for sale of parking. Hence, I have reason to believe that income amount in to Rs.42,95,000 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. Hence

DCIT, Circle-2, Durgapur vs. Kalyan Educational Society, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the 18

ITA 1176/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1176/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur ………. Appellant Vs. Kalyan Educational Society ………… Respondent 13, Dum Dum Cossipore Road, Dum Dum, Kolkata-700074. (Pan: Aabtk2860K) & C.O. No. 03/Kol/2024 In I.T.A. No.1176/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kalyan Educational Society ………… Cross Objector Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur ……….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Revenue Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Appeared For Assessee/Cross Objector. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 10.10.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue & The Cross Objection Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Are Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Appeals), National

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

stating that scope of powers of A.O during income escaping assessment being limited to focus on the issue in respect of which reason to believe has been recorded. Any other issue that comes to the notice of AO during the course of such assessment as the AO converted the reopened

Neeraj Dhama, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 945/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Tanya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

return of income, the source of cash deposit remains unexplained and treated it as unexplained income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Accordingly, reason to believe was recorded and approval from the PCIT was obtained for reopening the case u/s 147 of the Act. Accordingly notice

M/S Gassin Pierre Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 35(1)(ii)

further submitted that in the last para the AO has stated that he has reasons to believe that Rs. 25,00,000/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Ld. A.R vehemently submitted that letter received from JCIT, Range-8, Kolkata dated 15.10.2015 to the effect that the assessee ... reasons for opening the assessment. The AO on the basis of said letter has to come to the objective formation of reasons to believe that the assessee’s income has in fact escape assessment. The Ld. A.R stated that the said letter was a general letter stating that following

Rehana Aleem, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 384/IND/2024[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Rehana Aleem, Income-Tax Officer, B-68, Shahpura, 2(4), बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agqpa9854Q Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2024

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

information showing that the assessee had sold an immovable property for Rs. 35,22,000/- on 29.03.2008, the AO framed a reason to believe that the assessee had not disclosed capital gain arising therefrom which had escaped assessment. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s 148 to re-open case

Idfc First Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1171/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1170 & 1171/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. M/S. Idfc First Bank Ltd., The Pcit / Acit, [Earlier Known As Idfc Bank Ltd.], Corporate Cirlce-1(1), Krm Tower, 7Th Floor, No.1, Chennai. Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai. [Pan: Aadci 6523 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 147Section 148Section 263

facts and circumstances of the case, and the prevailing position of law applicable on such facts, I find that the AO has formed reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in the hands of the appellant company, on the basis of specific, credible and tangible information ... objections, the AO may either drop the re-opening of assessment proceedings since no new tangible material was available on record to form reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and asserted that the proposed exercise of re-opening can be termed as mere ‘change of opinion

Idfc First Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

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

ITA 1170/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1170 & 1171/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. M/S. Idfc First Bank Ltd., The Pcit / Acit, [Earlier Known As Idfc Bank Ltd.], Corporate Cirlce-1(1), Krm Tower, 7Th Floor, No.1, Chennai. Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai. [Pan: Aadci 6523 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 147Section 148Section 263

facts and circumstances of the case, and the prevailing position of law applicable on such facts, I find that the AO has formed reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in the hands of the appellant company, on the basis of specific, credible and tangible information ... objections, the AO may either drop the re-opening of assessment proceedings since no new tangible material was available on record to form reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and asserted that the proposed exercise of re-opening can be termed as mere ‘change of opinion

Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward3(1), Chennai, Tamilnadu vs. Salcomp Manufacturing India (P) Ltd, Chennai, Tamilnadu

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1403/CHNY/2023[2009-10, 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1403/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 V. The Ito, M/S. Salcomp Manufacturing- Corporate Ward-3(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. Nokia Telecom Sez, Sipcot Industrial Park- Phase-Iii, Sriperumbudur, Chennai-602 105. [Pan: Aajcs 7988 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Muralidhar, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

amount, requires to be added back to the total income of the assessee and taxed accordingly, In view of the above, I have reason to believe, that income assessed to tax has escaped assessment and also the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary ... hence the case is re-opened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that income assessed to tax has escaped assessment and also assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly M/s. Salcomp Manufacturing India

Krishnan Vidya Shankar, Chennai vs. ITO, NFAC, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1001/CHNY/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal**

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151

director, has to be treated as deemed dividend and brought to tax under section 2 (22) (e) of the Act. Therefore I have reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assesse has filed return ... action u/s.147 of the Act had to necessarily apply his mind on the relevant facts of the case, and examine whether there was *reason to believe* escapement of income, discernable from the reasons recorded by the AO and thereafter, permit re-opening of the assessment in question. In this case