← 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

Ares Diversified, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Intl. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2372/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 3

System of the Income Tax Department. The assessee had not filed the return of income for the relevant A.Y. Thus the AO formed reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, and the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, after recording satisfaction of such reason

Ares Diversified, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Intl. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2371/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 3

System of the Income Tax Department. The assessee had not filed the return of income for the relevant A.Y. Thus the AO formed reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, and the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, after recording satisfaction of such reason

Ms M K Shah and Co., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms

ITA 218/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 271(1)Section 69A

following grounds (a) Proceeding initiated under section 147/148 of the Act is on the basis of reason to suspect and not on reason to believe. (b) There is no new tangible material in possession of the Assessing Officer which justify issuance of notice

Jasudben Navinchandra Modi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2) Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 395/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches, Ahmedabad Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 05.04.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69

India and Rs. 13,00,000/- in bonds of Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. during the year under consideration. The AO recorded the reason to believe and after obtaining due approval u/s 151(2), issued 5 I.T.A No. 395/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No. Jasudben Navinchandra Modi v. ITO notice

Indu Mahendra Shah (L/H of Late Shri Mahendra G. Shah), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-20(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 856/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69C

Total Trade Value Beneficiary 1 Mahendra Ghisulal ALRPS2483D Rs. 5,46,32,199/- Shah 3. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs 5,46,32,199/ chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A.Y 2011-12 Accordingly, the 7 proceedings ... aforesaid contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee. In the reasons recorded the Assessing Officer has stated that the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax to the tune of INR 5,46,32,199/- had escaped assessment. In paragraph 4, it has been stated that

Mahendra Mamtora, Mumbai vs. ITO 30(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1119/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhrii T A. No. 1119/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2011-12)

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Authorities below have erred in re-opening of the assessment u/s 147 of the I T Act as there was no reason to believe with the AO that any income had escaped assessment as provided 2 Mahendra Mamtora under the provisions of section 147 of the IT Act except merely ... bank accounts and there are aggregate credits amounting to Rs.50,72,98,591/-in the bank accounts in F.Y.2010-11. The AO has reason to believe that the 3 Mahendra Mamtora income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and there was no compliance to the notice

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai. vs. Narendra G Mehta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 3557/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, C.C. 5(1) Vs. Narendra G. Mehta Huf, Room No.1928, 19Th Floor, Ground Floor, Pankaj Air India Building, Mahel, Opp, K.C. College, Nariman Point, Church Gate, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaahn8330A Appellant .. Respondent C.O No.25/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2011-12) Narendra G. Mehta Huf, Vs. Dcit, C.C. 5(1) Ground Floor, Pankaj Room No.1928, 19Th Mahel, Opp, K.C. College, Floor, Air India Building, Church Gate, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: : Aaahn8330A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

completing assessment for the year under consideration. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid information available with the undersigned, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax, as indicated above, to the tune of Rs.77,76,00,000/- or any other income chargeable to tax which comes

Debabrata Banerjee, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-34, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1084/KOL/2023[2013-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2024AY 2013-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

able to provide any submission or any documentary evidences in support of its proceedings" due to that the Ld AO had a reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. Accordingly Ld AO sent a notice u/s 148 which was duly served upon on the assessee. In response ... ITBA and Insight Portal. After analysing the assessment record and relevant information, documents and enquiries made with facts and findings thereof I have "reason to believe" that the income to the extent of more than Rupees One Lakh has escaped assessment in terms of sec.147 of the Income

Veenita Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1199/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

actually his own investment and the same was not genuine. Therefore, looking into the totality of facts, the assessing officer had strong reason to believe that even during the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had introduced his own unaccounted money in the garb of issuance of shares ... assessee cannot raise this objection at this stage of hearing before ITAT for the first time. 6. Looking into the merits of the reasons to believe, it is observed that the reassessment proceedings were initiated by the assessing officer on the basis of search action conducted on the assessee

Mananthavady Co-Op Urban Society Ltd, Wayanad vs. ITO Ward 2, Kalpetta

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

ITA 161/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

judgments of the High Court Karnataka in the case CIT Vs. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. (ITA No. 598/2013), the appellant has reason to believe that deduction u/s 80P ought to have been claimed. 5. For these and other grounds that may be permitted to be furnished ... judgments of the High Court Karnataka in the case CIT Vs. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. (ITA No. 598/2013), the assessee has reason to believe that deduction u/s 80P ought to have been claimed. Based on the above grounds, an appeal before the CIT (Appeals)/NFAC had been filed

Chakkittapara Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Calicut vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Calicut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Kerala, Society in the case of The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT. (ITA No. 212 of 2013) the appellant has reason to believe that deduction u/s 80P ought to have been allowed. 4. For these and other grounds that may be permitted to be furnished

Easyaccess Financial Services Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Copr Ward 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 587/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 587/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Easyaccess Financial Services Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, New No.18, Old No.40, Vs. Corporate Ward 2(1), Mussuri Subramaniam Salai, Chennai. (Oliver Road), Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Aabce 4646G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. M. Lavanya, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060282095(1) Dated 30.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 27.09.2017. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Ao For Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act, As The Ao During The Original Assessment Proceedings Has Formed An Opinion After Seeking Explanation & After Examining The Present Issue Of Factoring Of Income U/S.143(3) Of The Act. Hence, Now Reopening Is Bad In Law. The Assessee Also Raised The Interconnected Issue, Which Is On Merits That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Beig Factoring Income In The Hands Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Ms. M. Lavanya, FCA &For Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

being represents income escaped under various heads and is to be brought to tax. In view of reasons mentioned above, the AO had reasons to believe that your income for AY 2012-13 had escaped assessment and notice u/s 148 was issued.” From the above reason and the material placed ... 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 re- open the assessment. Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to re-open is much wider

P. Ravichandran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 582/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 582/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dr. P. Ravichandran, The Deputy Commissioner No.3, Second Link Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Raghava Reddy Colony, Central Circle – 1(3), Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 083. Pan: Aahpr 0455M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 54B

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 re- open the assessment. Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to re-open is much wider ... 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 of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to re-open

Punjab Police Welfare Fund, Chandigarh vs. ITO (Exemptions), Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 600/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

further erred in upholding the reopening of the case resorting to the provisions of Section 148 in as much as there was no reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and as such the assessment framed is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Commissioner

Dharmappa Anvitha, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Mysore

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

ITA 853/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing
Section 143(3)Section 147

case as she claims that the order of reassessment is bad in law and void ab initio as the AO had no reason to believe....and further that it is bad for want of mandatory sanction of the competent authority which if obtained was not in accordance with law. However

Santosh Khunteta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(5), Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3139/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56

dated 29/03/2017 by the A.O. without having any information, material or evidence in his possession so as to reason to believe that any income of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2010-11 had escaped assessment, so as to reopen the case of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel drawn ... Assessee submitted that A.O. as on the date of issuing the notice dated 29/03/2017 had no information or material in his possession to reason to believe that any income of the Assessee for the year under consideration had escaped assessment. The assessment u/s 147 of the Act for reopening

Premji Bhuralal Gala, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA 440/Mum/2024, ITA

ITA 440/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt (SRDR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)

argued the legal ground i.e., in ground 2 and placed that the assessment is reopened on the basis of the reasons recorded. The reason to believe for reopening U/s 148 is reproduced as below: - “Sir/ Madam/ M/s Subject: Reasons for re-opening u/s 147 REASONS FOR REOPENING ASSESSMENT ... from the alleged party which is in violation to section 269SS and the same needs to be taxed. In view of I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax of Rs.66,00,000/- has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee

K & P Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1318/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi T A. No. 1318, 1319 & 1320/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

entries/ bogus purchase bills in the F.Y 2007-08 from the B.L.Jain Group entities and the assessee is a beneficiary. The AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment and has issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act. The asssessee has filed a letter dated

Piyush Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(2), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 555/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 142Section 148Section 68

that it is to be made very clear that apparently everything is genuine but what is genuine is not apparent. There is no reason to believe that Piyush Kumar vs. ITO the transaction is genuine in this case. Further, he observed that further analysis of contract notes reveal that first

Gagan Preet Kaur Virdi, Lucknow vs. ITO-6(2), Lucknow-New

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 290/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 131Section 142Section 147Section 151Section 69A

Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The grounds of appeal are as under: I.T.A. No.290/Lkw/2024 2 S.A. No.10/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2016-17 “1.1 BECAUSE reason to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are wholly deficient in meeting the requirement ... holding the assessment proceedings as void-ab-initio and the assessment order as illegal, bad in law and null and void. 1.2 BECAUSE reason to believe in pursuance of which the assessment was reopened is based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer