“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

Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2353/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 17Section 250

Principal Officer, M/s Monteaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 11th Floor, Mohandev Building, 1,. Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi-110001 Whereas I have reason to believe that your income chargeable to tax in respect of which you are assessable for the Assessment Year 2007-08 has escaped assessment within the meaning ... registered on 01.05.2006 for Rs.15,00,000/- The difference of Rs. 15,00,000/- was paid through an accounted income/cash. I have reason to believe that income of the assessce company to the extent of Rs. 15,00,000/- the payment made in cash has escaped assessment

Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2352/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 17Section 250

Vinod Brijmohandas Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 432/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 147Section 148Section 68

Appeal) has erred in law as well as in fact while rejecting appellant objection to Ld. A.O. for reason to believe for initiation of scrutiny u/s.147. The reason to believe provided to assessee was incorrect. The assessee has objected that reason to believe on which assessment is opened under Section ... assessee during assessment and therefore on the basis of law and fact of the case the assessment u/s. 148 initiated on wrong reason to believe is required to cancel. 3. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law as well as in fact while confirming the addition made

Quadeye Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 792/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.792/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Quadeye Securities Pvt. Ltd..………...........………………....Appellant 184, Harish Mukherjee Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata-700026. [Pan: Aabce7790H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata….………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Disallowance Of Loss Of Rs.2,47,48,393/- Incurred By The Assessee In Commodities Dealing In National Multi Commodity Exchange Of India Limited (‘Nmce’) Platform & Further Making Addition Of Rs.4,92,263/- U/S 69C Of The Act On Account Of Alleged Commission That Might Have Been Paid By The Assessee In Booking The Aforesaid Bogus Loss In Commodity Trading.

Section 147Section 250Section 69C

submitted that the aforesaid reason mentioned by the Assessing Officer was a vague reason and would not fall within the scope of “reasons to believe of escapement of income” of the assessee. The ld. counsel has further invited our attention to reasons recorded to submit that in the said ... assuming jurisdiction to reopen an assessment by the Assessing Officer, there is a condition precedent that the Assessing Officer must have reasons to believe that the income of the assessee for that year has escaped assessment. It has been held time and again that the reasons to believe regarding

Bhartiya Samruddhi Investments and Consulting Services Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 4(2), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1637/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Yr. : 2012-13 Bhartiya Samruddhi Vs. Acit, Circle 4(2), Investments & Consulting New Delhi Services Limited, F-5, Ground Floor, Greater Kailash, Kailash Colony, Part-I, New Delhi – 110 048 (Pan: Aaacb5336R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 37

Court has held that after 1st April, 1989 Assessing Officer has power to reopen the assessment u/s. 147 provided that Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income; mere change

Mr. Kantilal Laxmichand Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 800/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 799 & 800/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बनाम/ Mr. Kantilal Laxmichand Ito Jain Ward - 1(2)(3), Vs. 22 Jakorbal Chamber, Opp. Ahmedabad Madhubaug Panchkuwa, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abbpj6013E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. Dr 19/09/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 03/10/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 29.12.2023 & 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 69A

case, the learned AO has erred in law and facts in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act as there was no reason to believe that the income of the Appellant had escaped assessment. 1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred

Mr. Kantilal Laxmichand Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 799/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 69A

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Mahaveer Kumar Jain, Jaipur

ITA 469/JPR/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024

For Appellant: Shri Tanju Agarwal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR

Section 69

Commissioner or Commissioner or Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that- (a) anyperson to whom a summons under sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Indian Income

Subhash Runwal, Bibwewadi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(4) Pune, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 1279/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Subhash Runwal 204, Solitari-5, Nr. Kalyan Bhel, Bibwewadi Rd., Pune-411037. Pan: Adbpr7670R. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr CD Upasani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

make no addition on account of cash deposits made by the assessee which was predominant element in forming the reasons to believe escapement of income, therefore any other addition in view of amended provision of section 147 of the Act r.w.s. explanations thereto is impermissible in law. To drive home ... Jain. In this case since addition towards one of the items (i.e., escaped interest income) which along-with other item also founded the reasons to believe, is made therefore the Ld. AO was well within his jurisdiction to assess any other item which came to his notice during the course

Vimla Devi Meena, Dausa vs. ITO Ward- Dausa, Dausa

ITA 1034/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 234ASection 250

land was made out of undisclosed income and the assessee had not filed the ITR for A.Y. 2011-12. Therefore I have reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs.28,02,415/- has escaped assessment u/s 147”. Accordingly, the AO had issued notices u/s 142(1) dated ... issued only when there is any escape of income because S. 147 provides that If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, here the assessee has not escaped any income because the assessee has never having

Prabhati Devi, Dausa vs. ITO Ward Dausa, Dausa

ITA 1031/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

M/S. Shree Swaminarayan Enterprises, Thane vs. ITO- 2(4), Thane

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

ITA 462/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhrim/S. Shree Swaminarayan Ito Ward 2(4), Enterprises, Room No. 25, B Wing, बनाम/ Plot No.30, Jeevandeep, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Vs. Opp: Shivdham Complex, Road No 162,Wagle Suryodaya Housing Society, Industrial Estate Ambernath (E) Thane (W)-421301 Thane-421501. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abofs3402K (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri.Niraj Seth.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Krishna kumar.Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

Officer (A.O) found that the assessee has violated the conditions of provisions of Sec. 80IB(10)(e)&(f) of the Act and has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice under Section 148 of the Act and also notice under Section

Tayani Holdings Pvt Ltd, Matunga Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 8(3)(1), Mumbai, Ayakar Bhavan

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

ITA 4129/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalm/S Tayani Holdings Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito- 8(3)(1), 285, Park View Bhiwanji R.No.616, Arjan Khimji Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Central Railway, Matunga, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400019. Mumbai.400020. Pan/Gir No. Aadct3311K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 153CSection 234ASection 246ASection 292BSection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

Shirish C Shah, who are engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries and the assessee is one of the beneficiary. Therefore, the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act. In compliance to notice, the assessee has filed a letter

Mr.Gulab Singh, Khanna vs. ITO-Ward-5, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

maintained by him jointly with Sh. Jaspal Singh in ICICI Bank, Doraha. On the basis of this information, the Assessing Officer recorded the reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and notice under section 148 of Act dated 29.03.2017 was issued and served upon the assessee

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2892/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule- CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

held by the Hon'ble Delhi High court in AGR Investment Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 333 ITR 146 that "...... The words 'reason to believe' cannot mean that the 'Assessing Officer' should have finally ascertained the facts by legal evidence. They only mean that he forms a belief from the examination ... Development Bank Of India.; A. Y.2016-17 satisfies himself that the taxable income has escaped assessment, it would amount to saying that he has reason to believe that such an income has escaped assessment..." 5. It was held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Allahabad High court in Pankaj Hospital

Amish Manubhai Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 932/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

that the assessee had not declared income, resulting in failure on the part of the assessee to disclose his income. Therefore, there was reason to believe that income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act and such escaped income exceeded Rs.1

Income Tax Office, Ward-6(2), Jaipur vs. Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 236/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ratan Lal Goyal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

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

Comfort Intech Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1) Mumbai, Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2926/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR

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

which is more than Rs.1,00,000. 7. So, after due application of mind on the materials available on the record, I have reason to believe that amount of more than Rs.1,00,000. has escaped the assessment for A.Y. 2011-12. 8. In this case a return of income ... scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed. Accordingly, in this case, the the requirement to initiate proceedings u/s 147 is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment which is more than Rs.1,00,000. And Failure on be half of assessee to disclose truly and fully

Comfort Intech Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1) Mumbai, Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2573/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Comfort Intech Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2218/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR

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