← 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

Indur Developers and Agencies Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 672/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. Therefore, Assessing Officer opined that there is a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment. 22. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons recorded by the AO to reopen ... purpose of the business of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the AO is entitled to reopen the assessment, if he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that assessment year. Further, two conditions must be satisfied for invocation of power under Section

Indur Avenues and Foods Private Limited, Nizamabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 667/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. Therefore, Assessing Officer opined that there is a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment. 22. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons recorded by the AO to reopen ... purpose of the business of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the AO is entitled to reopen the assessment, if he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that assessment year. Further, two conditions must be satisfied for invocation of power under Section

Indur Avenues and Foods Private Limited, Nizamabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 666/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. Therefore, Assessing Officer opined that there is a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment. 22. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons recorded by the AO to reopen ... purpose of the business of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the AO is entitled to reopen the assessment, if he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that assessment year. Further, two conditions must be satisfied for invocation of power under Section

Ujwala Publications and Developers Private Limited, Warangal vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 658/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ujwala Publications & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Developers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Warangal. Central Circle – 2(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacu6544J (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 31.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. Therefore, Assessing Officer opined that there is a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons recorded by the AO to reopen ... purpose of the business of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the AO is entitled to reopen the assessment, if he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that assessment year. Further, two conditions must be satisfied for invocation of power under Section

Nalgonda Realtors Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 657/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. Therefore, Assessing Officer opined that there is a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons recorded by the AO to reopen ... purpose of the business of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the AO is entitled to reopen the assessment, if he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that assessment year. Further, two conditions must be satisfied for invocation of power under Section

Nalgonda Realtors Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 656/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. Therefore, Assessing Officer opined that there is a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons recorded by the AO to reopen ... purpose of the business of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the AO is entitled to reopen the assessment, if he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that assessment year. Further, two conditions must be satisfied for invocation of power under Section

Nalgonda Realtors Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. Therefore, Assessing Officer opined that there is a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons recorded by the AO to reopen ... purpose of the business of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the AO is entitled to reopen the assessment, if he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that assessment year. Further, two conditions must be satisfied for invocation of power under Section

Kapil Food and Structure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 654/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. 5 Therefore, Assessing Officer opined that there is a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons recorded ... purpose of the business of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the AO is entitled to reopen the assessment, if he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that assessment year. Further, two conditions must be satisfied for invocation of power under Section

Kapil Property Developers Limited, Hanumakonda vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

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

ITA 652/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. 5 Therefore, Assessing Officer opined that there is a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons recorded ... purpose of the business of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the AO is entitled to reopen the assessment, if he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that assessment year. Further, two conditions must be satisfied for invocation of power under Section

Amanullah, Indore vs. Assessment Unit NFAC, Indore

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

ITA 240/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniamanullah Nfac 83/3, Juna Risala, Delhi Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Apipa0680H Assessee By Shri Manish Dafria, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.09.2024

Section 147

erred in not appreciating the fact that the opening of assessment u/s 147 was bad in law as there was no reason to believe with Ld. AO that any income of the assessee has escaped the assessment. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and without ... invoked and it is a strong case of escapement of income for the year under consideration. 2.In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the income to the extent of 2. Rs. 3,41,75,082/-chargeable to tax for the AY 2015-16 has escaped assessment

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 819/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

from 1st April, 1989), they are given a go-by and only one condition has remained, viz., that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to reopen is much wider. However ... 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 reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. 7. We must also

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 818/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

from 1st April, 1989), they are given a go-by and only one condition has remained, viz., that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to reopen is much wider. However ... 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 reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. 7. We must also

DCIT, Central Circle-2[2], Chennai vs. M/S Jay Real Estate, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 343/CHNY/2022[A.Y.1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024

Bench: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

made the several investments in immovable and/or movable properties. These had not been disclosed to the Income Tax department earlier. There was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act, and hence assessment was reopened and notice U/s.148

ITO Non Corporate Ward 19 (4), Chennai vs. Shri. K Venkatakrishnan, Chennai

ITA 1537/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1458/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 V. Shri K. Venkatakrishnan, The Ito, Legal Heir Of Late – Ncw-20(2), Shri K.S.Deenadayalu Reddy, Chennai. No.3/1, Old No.2, Avalon Flats, Ground Floor, Sixth Street, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086. [Pan: Aakpv 7243 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 148Section 151

provisions of section 151 of the Income Tax Act. 7. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reopening was made without any reason to believe that the income had escaped the assessment and therefore the reopening is invalid. The CIT (A) failed to note that the transfer

K.Venkatakrishnan, Legal Heir of Late Shri K.S.Deenadayalu Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 20(2), Chennai

ITA 1458/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1458/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 V. Shri K. Venkatakrishnan, The Ito, Legal Heir Of Late – Ncw-20(2), Shri K.S.Deenadayalu Reddy, Chennai. No.3/1, Old No.2, Avalon Flats, Ground Floor, Sixth Street, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086. [Pan: Aakpv 7243 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 148Section 151

provisions of section 151 of the Income Tax Act. 7. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reopening was made without any reason to believe that the income had escaped the assessment and therefore the reopening is invalid. The CIT (A) failed to note that the transfer

H. Sherul & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 551/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vaidyalingan, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

dated 11 September 2015 (Exhibit H) the Petitioner have submitted all the particulars along with supporting documents to the Respondent No.1. Hence the reasons to believe and s presumption based on the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain (a third party) in the course of a search, that the loans ... with the principles of 'shifting of onus' under the evidence act. The Supreme Court in Lakhmani Mewal Das has held that: "The expression 'reason to believe' does not mean purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income tax officer. The reason must be held in good faith. It cannot

H. Sherul & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 550/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vaidyalingan, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

dated 11 September 2015 (Exhibit H) the Petitioner have submitted all the particulars along with supporting documents to the Respondent No.1. Hence the reasons to believe and s presumption based on the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain (a third party) in the course of a search, that the loans ... with the principles of 'shifting of onus' under the evidence act. The Supreme Court in Lakhmani Mewal Das has held that: "The expression 'reason to believe' does not mean purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income tax officer. The reason must be held in good faith. It cannot

Smt. Deepinder Kaur Johal, Patiala vs. ITO, Ward-4, Patiala

ITA 532/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ManpreetDuggal, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253

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 are based only on borrowed information, incorrect facts, conjectures and estimation ... threshold of the hearing was that the Assessing Officer has grossly erred in law in as much as there has been no reason to believe that there was an escapement of income in as much as reasons recorded are based only on borrowed information, incorrect facts, conjectures and estimation

Smt. Sharda, Harsud, Khandwa vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

ITA 263/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 54B

year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening u/s 147 of the Act. 7.0 In view of the above mentioned discussion, I have reason to believe that the Income to the extent of Rs. 1,06,09,170/- has escaped assessment for the F.Y. 2013- 14 relevant

Shri Premnarayan, Harsud, Khandwa vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

ITA 262/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 54B

year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening u/s 147 of the Act. 7.0 In view of the above mentioned discussion, I have reason to believe that the Income to the extent of Rs. 1,06,09,170/- has escaped assessment for the F.Y. 2013- 14 relevant