“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

Saroj Sangwan, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2428/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2428/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

without jurisdiction in as much as there was no cogent material or evidence on record to I.T.A.No.2428/Del/2023 form reason to believe that any income of the assessee for the concerned assessment year has escaped assessment. The information received (AIRICIB information) was insufficient and could not be cogent material ... Delhi is bad in law and without jurisdiction in as much as there was no cogent material or evidence on record to form reason to believe that any income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Ld. Counsel submits that after issue of I.T.A.No.2428/Del/2023 notice

Sukh Darshan Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward.43(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2233/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 54F

erred in confirming addition of Rs.4285000/- only on basis of deposits in Bank in absence of any Reason to Believe that income has escaped assessment whereas Appellant need not submit any return u/s.139 of 1. T. Act, 1961 having either below taxable income or exempt income u/s 10 as agricultural ... assessee is in appeal before us. 8. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted as under: “1. Ld A.O has drawn reason to believe only on basis of reason to suspect on ground that Appellant has deposited cash in his Bank Account & that Appellant has not filed

The Muslim Education Soc, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 588/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.588/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Muslim Education Soc., Vs. Ito, Ratnagiri. Saitavade, Ratnagiri- 415613 Pan : Aaatt8659C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Ahmedabad For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition By The A.O. U/S 69A Of Rs. 13,17,470/- As Unexplained Money In Respect Of Cash Deposited In Bank Account, In Spite Of The Appellant Having A Clear Explanation For The Source Of Investment. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To, Amend, Alter, Delete Or Modify All Or Any Of The Above Ground Of Appeal Or Raise A New Ground Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

information that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.11,62,022/- in the accounts maintained with central bank of India , the AO had reason to believe within the meaning of section 147 of the IT Act that the assessee’s income chargeable to tax to the extent of Rs.1

Maheshkumar Hargovind Goyal, Nagpur vs. Ward 1(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 322/NAG/2023[AY 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it Is sufficient to satisfy the test of reason to believe. Reason to believe does not require that for forming this prima facie belief, the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained the final fact

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 571/KOL/2020[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

justified. The Tribunal had allowed the assessee's appeal and held that the PCIT has not recorded any finding that he has reason to believe that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment and the revenue being aggrieved by the said finding on an appeal before us. What is important ... show cause notice issued under section 263 of the Act has been extracted, the PCIT has not recorded any finding that he has reason to believe that income that is assessable to tax has escaped assessment. 5. In the absence of such finding, we are of the view that

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 570/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

ITO, WD.9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

detected or noticed within the time period set-down in section 153. In these circumstances if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe, predicated on information received by him, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, he would invoke the powers under section 147. On the other hand, where ... relevant year under section 148,. . . two conditions were required to be fulfilled: the first is that the Income- tax Officer must have reason to believe that the income, profits or gains chargeable to tax had been underassessed or escaped assessment; the second is that he must have reason to believe

Felie Amit Bavisi, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed

ITA 508/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawali T A. Nos. 507 & 508/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11) Felie Amit Bavisi Vs Ito-Ward-28(1)(3), Room No. 15B, 610, Thacker Tower Chs, . Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. 86, M.K.Road, Sector -17 Vashi, Mumbai-400020. Navi Mumbai-400706. Pan/Gir No. Abypb8391E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

assessee has obtained accommodation bills/ bogus purchases from three parties aggregating to Rs.60,58,884/-. Therefore the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act. In compliance to the notice, the assessee has filed the letter to treat

Nitin Nagarji Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(3)(5) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4821/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr. A.R

Section 144Section 147Section 68

Nitin Nagarji Mehta v. ITO transactions of sale of immovable property amounting to Rs. 52,00,000/-. On the strength of this information reason to believe was formed by the AO that income has escaped assessment. The AO assumed Jurisdiction to reassess the income of the assessee by issuing notice

Nitin Nagarji Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4820/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr. A.R

Section 144Section 147Section 68

Nitin Nagarji Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4819/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr. A.R

Section 144Section 147Section 68

Chetan Balubhai Sanena, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3849/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Chetan Balubhai Sanena Vs. Income Tax Officer – 32(1)(2) B-405, Rainbow Apartments Bandra Kurla Complex C.S. Road, Dahisar (E) Mumbai 400051 Mumbai 400068 Pan/Gir No. :Acipp3106F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148

Referred by the ld. Counsel on the proposition that in case the AO failed to produce the record, therefore, the AO has not reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that since the records were not produced

M/S Apex Energy Resources Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68

also debited interest of Rs. 1,17,230/- on that accommodation entry. Consequently after recording reason to believe u/s 148(2) of the Act, the case was reopened u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 4.3.2012. The assessee filed various details/information as directed by AO during

Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 212/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Guduri, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

total income escapement amounts to Rs.8,10,96,000/- and this needs to be added back to the total income. Hence ,I have reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment within the meaning of sec.147 of the IT act,1961.” 3.1 The ld.counsel for the assessee then took ... 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

DCIT, Chennai vs. Empee Distilleries Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1380/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1380/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Vs M/S. Empee Distilleries Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ‘Empee Tower, Corporate Circle-2(1) 59, Harris Road, Pudupet, Chennai-600 034 Chennai-600 002. Pan : Aaace-1687-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Suresh Guduri, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. A.R.Karthick Lakshmanan, Advocate सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Guduri, JCITFor Respondent: Mr. A.R.Karthick

Section 147

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 ... which has been urged on behalf of the assessee that section 147(1) as it stands postulates that upon the formation of a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income "and also

Bhoomivikas Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-6(1)(2)

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

ITA 4487/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

Section 143(3)Section 68

exceeding Rs.10 lakhs in the F.Y.2011- 12 and the assessee has not filed the return of income for A.y.2012-13. Whereas the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. Further the A.O has issued notice U/sec

Income Tax Office -34(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Prime Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4246/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41Section 41(1)

debited & allowed is required to be withdrawn. 5. The information gives a substantial basis for the formation of a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment on the above mentioned issues due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary ... doubt that the above amounts to income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment. 6. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income of Rs. 1,93,90,770/- Rs. 4,22,90,000/- & Rs. 14,43,33,583/ on account of cessation of liability

M/S Prime Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -25(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4152/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41Section 41(1)

Gaurav Dhanrajgir Verma, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Office, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 325/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 147Section 44A

erred in confirming the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act in the absence of any material for a reason to believe that, there has been an escapement of income. The initiation of proceedings without satisfying the pre-conditions is untenable both on facts

Ramotar Choudhari HUF, Kolkata vs. PCIT 5 Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari Huf.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 7Th Floor, R.N 25 Fortuna Tower, 23A N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aanhr9093K] Vs. Pcit-5, Kolkata………….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 18.10.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,970/- On 21.01.2014. Thereafter, An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer From Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263