← 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

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 2216/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

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

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 2212/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai, Income Tax Department vs. Raj Clearing Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 1489/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Acit – 24(1), Raj Clearing Agency, Vs. Room.No.601, 6Th Floor, 303/D Wing, Piramal Chambers, Jayant Apartment, Lalbaug, Parel, Sahar Cargocomplex, Mumbai – 400012. Andheri(East), Mumbai-40099. Pan/Gir No. Aaifr0443E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 40A(2)(b)

claim of expenditure has to be disallowed. Hence the A.O has 5 Raj Clearing Agency, Mumbai reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. In compliance, the assessee has filed the return of income on 23.04.2021 disclosing a total income of Rs.2

M/S Ramniklal & Sons, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1) Presented Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee gets a partial relief

ITA 1192/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Devang Divecha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

seizure action was conducted in case of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group by investigation wing, Mumbai and the ld. Assessing Officer formed a reason to believe that the assessee has availed accommodation entries from the parties namely, M/s. Daksh Diamonds for Rs.10,27,140/-, M/s Krishna Diam Rs.43

A.C.I.T, Wardha Circle, Wardha vs. M/S Kapil Solvex Pvt .Ltd, Yavatmal

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

ITA 221/NAG/2017[2009-20010]Status: Trans-OutITAT Pune26 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

been scrutinized, the nature, source and genuineness of the cash credits appearing as share premium required to be verified. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the hand of the assessee for the A.Y.2009-10 in terms of the Provision of Section ... further submits that the reasons recorded for reopening the case are not correct and the reopening is on reason to suspect and not reason to believe and hence, the reopening u/s 148 is bad in law. 3] The respondent further submits that no approval u/s 151 has been brought

Sh. Virbhadra Singh Through L/H Smt. Pratibha Singh, Shimla vs. DCIT, Circle, Shimla

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 148/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 148/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Virbhadra Singh, Vs. The Dcit, Circle Through Legal Heir बनाम Shimla Smt. Pratibha Singh Of Late Shri Virbhadra Singh, Holly Lodge, Jakhoo, Shimla-171001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Alrps 6513N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hering ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 151(1)

NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the case u/s 148 as there was no reason to believe with the Assessing Officer to have resorted to reopening of the case u/s 148. 2. That the reopening of the case is otherwise

Bapatla Mahila Mutually Aided Co-Op Thrift Societ Limited, Bapatla vs. Income-Tax Officer, Wrd-1, Bapatla

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

ITA 321/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 321/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bapatla Mahila Mutually Aided Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Op. Thrift Society Limited, Ward-1, Bapatla. Bapatla. Pan: Aaaab6442N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 69A

contributed by them. Therefore, since there was no reply to the letters issued to the assessee, the Ld. AO observed that he has reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment to the extent of Rs. 1,33,48,085/- for the A.Y.2013-14

Prasant Desai, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 61, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 735/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.735/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Prasant Desai……..……………….………...........………………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite – 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Acypd1511B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-61, Kolkata.……………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 25, 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 26.02.2024 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 Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.75,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unsecured Loans Received From M/S Festive Deal Trade Pvt. Ltd. Treating The Same As Bogus.

Section 147Section 148Section 250

belief that the assessee has not reported the transaction of Rs.75,00,000/- as mentioned above. He, therefore, held that he has reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and accordingly, reopened the assessment. 4. The ld. counsel, at the outset, has agitated against ... 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

M/S Flora Exports, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 31(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 502/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.502/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Flora Exports……………….………...........………………....Appellant 17/2/H/13, Smith Lane, Taltala, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Aabff1684J] Vs. Ito, Ward-31(1), Kolkata.……………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 01, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 25, 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 14.12.2023 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 Has Taken The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 151Section 250

that re-assessment order dated 29.12.2018 framed u/s. 147 is void and nullity in the eyes of law as there are no recorded reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held ... purchase entries from one Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh. That The information was received from the Investigation Wing and therefore, the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. We note that

Asian Earth Movers, Bellary vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

Appellant was sold for Rs 67,67,000/- did not lead to any inference of income escaping assessment, let alone any formation of 'reason to believe', which is a condition precedent for issue of the Notice u/s 148 of the Act. (ii) Because and without prejudice to the above

Sankarlingam Sankar Through His Legal Heir Ganesh Shankar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

ITA 707/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Gajendra Golcha, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

income and in this case, no assessment has been made till date. Accordingly, the only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s. 147 is the reason to believe which has been recorded as above. Considering the fac.sts as mentioned above the case of the assessee was reopened

Export Import Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl. Jt. Dy. Asst. CIT Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2917/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Export Import Bank Of India Pcit, Mumbai-3, Mumbai World Trade Centre Complex, Vs Centre One Building, Floor 21, Colaba S.O., Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaace 2769 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CITIA) ought to have held that there was no reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year under reference as the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO tor issuance

Tejas Transcom (P) Ltd., Burdwan West vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(2), Durgapur

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

ITA 1387/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

period of 4 (four) years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. by 31.03.2015 i.e. the Department did not have any reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year till 31.03.2015. 1.5 The Department did not have any reason to believe

Nilima Kothari, Indore vs. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Asstt. Centre, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 259/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

proceedings are time barred secondly, that no valid approval u/s 148 of the Act has been taken and thirdly, there was no proper reason to believe about escapement of income for initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. Submissions filed by the assesse on these three legal issues reads ... contention that the valid notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued within the prescribed time limit and there were proper reason to believe that the income has escaped and that the assessee has taken accommodation entry in the form of bogus long term capital gain. 5. I have

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited, Trichy

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

ITA 1260/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Soumen Adak, CA
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 92C

assessee has pointed that in ITBA portal the last date for completion of assessment was mentioned as 30/09/2022, therefore, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that he has still time to make reference. We find no force in the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. The limitation

M/S. Coolhut Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed

ITA 1450/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: the time of hearing.”

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

facts of this case, i.e., in this case, the only requirement to reopen assessment under s. 147 was that the AO has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The second condition that the income should have escaped assessment due to failure on the part

Megha Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the Appeal of the appellant stands dismissed with no orders as to cost

ITA 959/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43C

Therefore, on the construction placed by us, sub-section (2) had no application to the present case and the ITO could have no reason to believe that any part of the income of the assessee had escaped assessment so as to justify the issue of a notice under

Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

ITA 681/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 253(5)

Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010] 187 Taxman 312 (SC) “..4…However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change ... section 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove. Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not only deleted the words "reason to believe" but also inserted the word "opinion" in section 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the Companies against omission of the words

Jaspreet Singh Sidhu, Chandigarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 335/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 335/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Jaspreet Singh Sidhu, Vs. The Pcit-1, बनाम Cr Building, Sector 17, H. No. 1656, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bykps6091L अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263

read with section 148 of the Act, unless it assesses to tax that income with reference to which the Assessing Officer had formed reason to believe (within the meaning of section 147), that it had escaped assessment. 21 To my mind, a careful reading of section ... notice under section 148, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other income

ACIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Sml Isuzu Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

allowed the deductions wrongly and, therefore, he was of the opinion that the income had escaped assessment. Though he has used the phrase 'reason to believe' in his order admittedly, between the date of the orders of assessment sought to be reopened and the date of forming of opinion ... notice and the subsequent proceedings will be without jurisdiction, liable to be struck down in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. If 'reason to believe' be available, the writ court will not exercise its power of judicial review to go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the material available