← 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

Bindu Dharmesh Bhatt, Vadodara vs. Asstt.CIT., Circle-1(3), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 618/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 274

Hence, it is believed that the assessee has not disclosed the interest income of Rs. 2,16,102/-in ITR. Therefore, I have reason to believe that in this case income of Rs 8,15,352/- [15,99,250-+2,16,102/-] has escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year ... Basis of forming reasons to believe and details of escapement of income:- The assessee is found to have traded in NMCE platform and purchased the commodities scrips of Rs. 5,99,250/- which has not been I.T.A No. 618/Ahd/2023 Bindu Dharmesh Bhatt, A.Y. 2011-12 disclosed by the assessee

Dindayal Magasvargiya Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd, Waghwadi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sangli., Nishant Colony

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

ITA 2325/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2325/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dindayal Magasvargiya Vs. Acit, Circle Sangli, Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd., Sangli. At Waghwadi, Post Kameri, Tal. Walwa, Sangli- 415403. Pan : Aaaad0254E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri R. Y. Balawade Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 For Ay 2013-14, Being The Year Beyond 4 Years & For Which Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Has Already Been Passed, Thereby

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri R. Y. Balawade
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 43B

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147 for AY 2013-14, by recording the reason to believe which is based on incorrect presumptions and therefore an action based on such presumed reason to believe is incorrect and order passed in consequence ... circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147 for AY 2013-14 by recording the reason to believe which is based on audit objection. We submit that the reason based on such borrowed satisfaction cannot be the basis of reopening the concluded

Jet Speed Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7537/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43C

erred in not upholding the reasons recorded for opening of assessment amount to reason to suspect and do not amount to reason to believe and the said reason do not constitute belief. 1.6 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not treating the Notice u/s 148 and pursuant Assessment order passed

Bhavana Suresh Chauhan, Borivali West vs. Ward42(1)(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 7290/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhavana Suresh Chauhan Ito, Ward-42(1)(1), Mumbai 703, Kguru Residency, 1 Babai Naka, Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai, Dharamdas Marg, Borivali West, Maharashtra – 400051. Mumbai – 400097. [Pan No. Adipc1169K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 254(1)Section 68

only showing complete non application of mind and borrowed satisfaction. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that there was no “reason to believe” and no tangible material to justify reopening of the assessment, and that the initiation of proceedings was based on mere suspicion, change of opinion

Jasmine Zubin Shroff, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2380/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2380/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs.Jasmine Zubin Shroff V The Income Tax (Through Legal Heir Zubin K S Officer, Shroff), Ward-7(1), Pune. 826/C No.5, Anklesharia Blocks, Dastur Meher Road, Camp, Pune - 411001. Pan:Basps7144E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B C Malakar Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe - Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Legal Heir Of Late Jasmine Z. Shroff Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 19.12.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The

Section 144Section 250

books of accounts and has admitted the cash receipts as undisclosed income for respective projects and concerned financial years. 3. Therefore, I have reason to believe; that income to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/- has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2012-13 and hence the case ... Income-tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC), the Supreme Court had explained that expression "reason to believe" would mean justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment. While, it is correct that it is not necessary for the Assessing

Peda Subba Rao Unnam, Addanki vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 1664/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 69A

year limit. Case Law: CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC): The Supreme Court emphasized that the "reason to believe" for reopening must be based on tangible material and must be valid in law, including adherence to the time limits prescribed

Revanth Reddy Anumala, Banjara Hills vs. A.C.I.T Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 650/HYD/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Orders passed u/sec.153A of the Act are still pending adjudication before the learned CIT(A) and therefore, the assessee was having a reason to believe that the appeal for the year under consideration also not disposed of by the learned CIT(A). The assessee has specifically given the reasons that

Ocean International, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 8651/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 147Section 270A

erred in law and on facts in upholding the reopening of assess that u/s 147 without appreciating that the AO had no independent ‘reason to believe based on tangible material. The reasons were mechanically borrowed from the Investigation Wing's report without prima facie evidence of escapement of income, rendering

Ocean International, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 8650/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 147Section 270A

erred in law and on facts in upholding the reopening of assess that u/s 147 without appreciating that the AO had no independent ‘reason to believe based on tangible material. The reasons were mechanically borrowed from the Investigation Wing's report without prima facie evidence of escapement of income, rendering

Ocean International, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 8649/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 147Section 270A

erred in law and on facts in upholding the reopening of assess that u/s 147 without appreciating that the AO had no independent ‘reason to believe based on tangible material. The reasons were mechanically borrowed from the Investigation Wing's report without prima facie evidence of escapement of income, rendering

Ocean International, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 8648/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 147Section 270A

erred in law and on facts in upholding the reopening of assess that u/s 147 without appreciating that the AO had no independent ‘reason to believe based on tangible material. The reasons were mechanically borrowed from the Investigation Wing's report without prima facie evidence of escapement of income, rendering

Ocean International, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 8647/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 147Section 270A

erred in law and on facts in upholding the reopening of assess that u/s 147 without appreciating that the AO had no independent ‘reason to believe based on tangible material. The reasons were mechanically borrowed from the Investigation Wing's report without prima facie evidence of escapement of income, rendering

JCIT(OSD), Delhi vs. Icra Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2890/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 147Section 270A

erred in law and on facts in upholding the reopening of assess that u/s 147 without appreciating that the AO had no independent ‘reason to believe based on tangible material. The reasons were mechanically borrowed from the Investigation Wing's report without prima facie evidence of escapement of income, rendering

ACIT, Circle-52(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Singhania Alu Foil Containers Manufacturing Company, New Delhi

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

ITA 2743/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

that the Assessing Officer had power to reopen the assessment provided there was some tangible material on the basis of which he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment." 7.8 On similar facts, Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case

DCIT Circle 1 Nashik, Nashik vs. Shree Sai Properties, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 987/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

facts existed at the time of original assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. Second legal issue was raised contending that if the reason to believe that reopening the assessment of the assessee is based on the incriminating material found and seized during the course of search u/s.132 ... assessee’s case comes under the ambit of provisions of section 147 and ld. AO has carried out valid reassessment proceedings after forming reason to believe about alleged escapement of income on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing, Nashik including the incriminating documents found and seized during

Vaijnath Gundappa Kshirsagar Through L/H. Shri Shivkumar Sadramappa Kshirsagar, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Latur

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

ITA 2835/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 54B

offered capital gains in respect of the said immovable property for taxation, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) had reason to believe that income arising on sale of property amounting to Rs.3,05,00,000/- had escaped assessment. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing of notice

Shree Jadisiddeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Limited, Belgaum vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Deelhi

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

ITA 257/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.257/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) Shri Jadisiddheshwar Urban Vs I T O, Credit Souhard Sahakari National E Assessment . Limited, Centre, Near Vithal Mandr Bellad Delhi. Bagewadi, Talhukkeri, Belgaum-591305, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aacas2214F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 80A

assesse in the F.Y.2017-18 and the assesse has not filed the return of income for the A.Y.2018-19. The Assessing officer (A.O) has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act and further notice u/sec143 (2) and u/sec

Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 8364/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10(34)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

passed without valid service of notice under section 148. . Both the lower authorities failed to consider that the AO could not have had ‘reason to believe’, that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. . Both the lower authorities erred in neither furnishing the statement recorded of the proprietor of “Swastik ... without valid service of notice under section 148. 3. Both the lower authorities failed to consider that the AO could not have had ‘reason to believe’, that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 4. Both the lower authorities erred in neither furnishing the statement recorded of the proprietor

Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 8363/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10(34)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

passed without valid service of notice under section 148. . Both the lower authorities failed to consider that the AO could not have had ‘reason to believe’, that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. . Both the lower authorities erred in neither furnishing the statement recorded of the proprietor of “Swastik ... without valid service of notice under section 148. 3. Both the lower authorities failed to consider that the AO could not have had ‘reason to believe’, that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 4. Both the lower authorities erred in neither furnishing the statement recorded of the proprietor

Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 8362/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10(34)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

passed without valid service of notice under section 148. . Both the lower authorities failed to consider that the AO could not have had ‘reason to believe’, that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. . Both the lower authorities erred in neither furnishing the statement recorded of the proprietor of “Swastik ... without valid service of notice under section 148. 3. Both the lower authorities failed to consider that the AO could not have had ‘reason to believe’, that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 4. Both the lower authorities erred in neither furnishing the statement recorded of the proprietor