← 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

Cheyur Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Business Ward - 2(3), Chennai

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

ITA 334/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 54B

said lands was claimed as agricultural lands and capital gain exemption was claimed. "Since any agricultural income was not offered there was every reason to believe the income chargeable to tax had escaped from the assessment under the head of capital, and the assessment was reopened under-section ... above Case has further hold that availability of tangible materials alone is not sufficient and there must always be a "schematic interpretation" towards "reason to believe" failing which Section 147 would confer arbitrary powers to AO to reopen assessments on the basis of "change of opinion" which is no longer

Padam Kumar Goyal, Tonk vs. ITO Ward-Tonk, Income Tax Department, Tonk

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

ITA 581/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

appellate proceedings, in the written submission filed, the appellant has stated that the re-assessment proceedings are bad in law in absence of "reason to believe" and incorrect facts recorded by the AO while issuing notice u/s 148 and change in stand in reassessment proceedings. The appellant has stated that ... years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the condition precedent to the exercise of the power is the existence of a reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The expression "reason to believe must obviously be that of a prudent person

Goyal Vegoils Limited, Kasar, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle -2, Kota

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

ITA 243/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

discussion, it is held that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 was valid and well within jurisdiction. He had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment because of the failure of the assessee company to furnish fully and truly all material particulars ... another person in issuing the notice. Moreover, the tangible material upon the basis of which the Assessing Officer comes to the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment can come to him from any source, however, reasons for the reopening has to be only

Jet Infraventure Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 2337/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Gunjan H Kakkad
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 68

year under consideration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer recorded under consideration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer recorde under consideration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer recorde reason to believe that said unsecured loan being accommodation to believe that said unsecured loan being accommodation to believe that said unsecured loan being accommodation entry and hence

Balram Chainrai, Mumbai vs. Int Tax, Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153Section 271(1)(c)

mere pretence. The powers of the ITO to reopen assessment though wide are not plenary. The words of the statute are reason to believe and not reason to suspect. The reopening of the assessment after the lapse of many years is a serious matter. The Act, no doubt, contemplates

ACIT, Circle-24(1), Mumbai vs. Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja, Mumbai

In the result, the cross the result, the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1987/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-24(1), Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja, 601, 6Th Floor, K-1, Balkrishna Chs, Jp Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Road, Andheri West, Parel, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Amgps 5143 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay SinghFor Respondent: 08/07/2024
Section 69A

external sources or from the internal sources s or from the internal sources, which could be basis which could be basis for reasons to believe that income escaped assessment. In absence for reasons to believe that income escaped assessment. In absence for reasons to believe that income escaped assessment ... given a go-by and only one condition has by and only one condition has remained, viz., that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe remained, viz., that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe remained, viz., that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income

Jet Infraventure Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-12(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1020/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gunjan H KakkadFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 68

shown unsecured loan of Rs.80,00,000/- from M/s Samyak Exim Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer recorded reason to believe that said unsecured loan being accommodation entry and hence income escaped assessment. 3.1 During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked

Kissan Fats Ltd., Bathinda vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

issued to the assesse which is dt. 01/03/2021 wherein the Department of Income Tax has stated that they have ‘reasons to believe’ that assessee’s income chargeable to tax for A.Y. 2013-14 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act, and therefore they propose ... made by the AO. The assessment in this case was reopened on the basis of information gathered by the AO and formation of reasons to believe regarding the unaccounted transactions made by the assessee company with M/s Shri Hari Trading Co. and M/s Shubham Agro India. As per the assessment

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

that the statement on 14.01.2017 & 17.01.2017 was under duress. Therefore, the reopening has been carried out mainly on suspicion and there is no reason to believe. Also for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, in absence of any material information not found to be filed before ... Page 11 of 31 I.T.A. No. 757 to 759/Kol/2022 A Ys: 2011-12 to 2013-14, Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Hence, I have reason to believe that income has been escaped by the assessee i.e. M/s. Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAFCP2218P) for AY 2013-14 to the tune

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

that the statement on 14.01.2017 & 17.01.2017 was under duress. Therefore, the reopening has been carried out mainly on suspicion and there is no reason to believe. Also for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, in absence of any material information not found to be filed before ... Page 11 of 31 I.T.A. No. 757 to 759/Kol/2022 A Ys: 2011-12 to 2013-14, Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Hence, I have reason to believe that income has been escaped by the assessee i.e. M/s. Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAFCP2218P) for AY 2013-14 to the tune

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

that the statement on 14.01.2017 & 17.01.2017 was under duress. Therefore, the reopening has been carried out mainly on suspicion and there is no reason to believe. Also for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, in absence of any material information not found to be filed before ... Page 11 of 31 I.T.A. No. 757 to 759/Kol/2022 A Ys: 2011-12 to 2013-14, Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Hence, I have reason to believe that income has been escaped by the assessee i.e. M/s. Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAFCP2218P) for AY 2013-14 to the tune

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Raheja Universal Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4847/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, CA
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 250

truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration. 5. In view of the facts mentioned above, I have reason to believe that income of more than Rs. 1 lakh has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the LT. Act by the reason ... from the end of the relevant year has expired in this case, the requirements to initiate proceeding u/s 147 of the Act are reason to believe that income for the year under consideration has escaped assessment because of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully

Gurinder Singh, Kharar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Apeals, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 137/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 बनाम Gurinder Singh, The Ito, Village Jhungian, Ward-6(1), Post Office Jandpur Chandigarh Kharar-140301 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ckyps1280G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Sharma, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh Danish Abdullah, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

consonance with the income shown in the Income tax return of the Assessee. This reason itself, in our view, cannot be a reason to believe that the income of the ITA No. 137-Chd-2024 Gurinder Singh, Kharar 4 Assessee has escaped assessment. This information of transfer of amount ... facts and borrowed satisfaction without co-relating the said information with the accounts of the Assessee. Therefore, the same falls short of the reasons to believe that the income of the Assessee has escaped assessment. Moreover, the Assessee has duly explained that the said amount of Rs. 35 lacs

Umesh Bhimrao Chiprikar, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1297/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Umesh Bhimrao Chiprikar, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shanti Dental Hospital, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji. Harshwardhan Complea, Kolhapur Road, A/P.Jaysingpur, Jaysingpur – 416101. Maharashtra. Pan: Afkpc9558C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Umeshkumar M. Mali – Ar Revenue By Shari Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeal)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 13.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) Ground No. 1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Umesh Bhimrao Chiprikar, Kolhapur [A]

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

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

Ravi Kumar Enantala, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Vijayawada

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

ITA 168/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.168/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ravikumar Enantala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, D.No. 74-1-22/1, Ward-2(4), Yrl Complex, Mg Road, Vijayawada. Patamata, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh – 520007. Pan: Aadpe9027C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

bank account during the demonetization period. So, in absence of any credible evidence to support the averments made by the appellant, I have reason to believe that the appellant has not concrete defence in support of his grounds of appeal. 5.4. In view of the discussion made in the above

M/S Fancy Enterprises, Kolkata vs. A.O. Cir. 32, Kolkata

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

ITA 797/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Fancy Enterprises Ao,Circle-2 2, Ganesh Chandra, Income Tax Office Avenue, Bentick Street, 10B Middleton, Calcutta Vs. Commerce House West Bengal-700071 West Bengal-700 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaff5111B Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

that the assessment is bad in law since the proceedings- initiated u/s 147 were itself bad in law, there was neither any reason to believe nor the conditions to the proviso to sec 147 were satisfied, the original assessment having been completed u/s 143(3) for the relevant year ... suspect has initiated the reassessment proceedings. It has been held time and again that the reopening should be carried out on a reason to believe and not reason to suspect. The facts of the instant case clearly indicates that the reopening has been carried out after four years without having

Jayesh Hirji Savla, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3247/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147

received the information that the assessee has made high value deposits in the bank accounts and were not explained, therefore the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act and in compliance, the assesse has filed the return

Jayesh Hirji Savla, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3246/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147

received the information that the assessee has made high value deposits in the bank accounts and were not explained, therefore the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act and in compliance, the assesse has filed the return

Jayesh Hirji Savla, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3245/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147

received the information that the assessee has made high value deposits in the bank accounts and were not explained, therefore the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act and in compliance, the assesse has filed the return

Jayesh Hirji Savla, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3244/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147

received the information that the assessee has made high value deposits in the bank accounts and were not explained, therefore the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act and in compliance, the assesse has filed the return