← 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

Income Tax Officer- 19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Parasmal Fozhraj Sanghvi HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4017/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Income Tax Officer- 19(2)(4) Vs. Parasmal Fozhraj Sanghvi Huf Piramal Chamber 10/2 Atul Niwas, 7Th Khetwadi Room No. 405, Lalbaug Svp Road, Girgaum Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400004 Pan/Gir No. : Aaahp5379M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: ------ None -----
Section 143(3)Section 148

appreciate that (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

Braham Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Faridabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3495/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144BSection 147Section 194ASection 249(4)(b)Section 270ASection 3

which TDS also deducted during the financial year 2016-17 relevant to the A.Y. 2017-18. According to the AO, there was every reason to believe that the deposits during period made by the assessee from undisclosed sources. The AO completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section

Hallex Applied Power Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 230/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

have considered the grounds raised by the appellant and the submission filed on record. 6.1.2 The appellant submitted that no 'reason to believe' was recorded by the AO in actual as the same was 'reason to suspect'. I have considered the 'reason to believe' recorded ... reasons to believe', the AO has initiated the reassessment proceedings, as the appellant has not filed the return of income, even though, the information from ITD and ITBA systems shows that the appellant company has earned interest income, contractual payments and fees for professional and technical services from different parties

Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 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 30.12.2022 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 Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

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

ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 645/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 263

follows: “16. From a perusal of the aforesaid reasons it is evident that the jurisdictional fact/information on which the AO has based his reason to believe escapement of income was that the department received an authentic information that huge value of deposits were made in the bank account ... Concord Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. According to the Ld. AR, this foundational fact on the basis of which the AO had based his “reason to believe escapement of income" is factually wrong/erroneous since the foundation fact has been found to be absent, which fact is evident from the factual findings

Satish Manikrao Sakhre, Beed vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Centre

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2016-17 and AY

ITA 156/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Umesh RuparelFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

from current account Rs.96,60,977/- 4. Since the assessee had not filed returns for both the aforesaid AYs, the Ld. AO had reason to believe that under the provisions of clause (a) of Explanation 2 to section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) income of Rs.18

Satish Manikrao Sakhre, Beed vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2016-17 and AY

ITA 155/PUN/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Umesh RuparelFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

from current account Rs.96,60,977/- 4. Since the assessee had not filed returns for both the aforesaid AYs, the Ld. AO had reason to believe that under the provisions of clause (a) of Explanation 2 to section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) income of Rs.18

Smt. Renu Gupta, Ambala City vs. ITO, Ward 3, Ambala

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

ITA 12/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Varun Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

such search made. 4. That the AO has arrived to the decision merely on the basis of an entry, without any suitable Reason to Believe. The reason as given by AO does not satisfy the basis requirements of Section 147 of the Act. The reasons & the information referred

Maheshwari Megaventures Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad03 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50C

that the issue requires verification through scrutiny proceedings by reopening the assessment also further shows that the basis for reopening is not the reason to believe, but it is only a reason to suspect as has been held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mukesh ... Officer per se, founded on mere change of opinion and the same cannot satisfy the legislative intent that the learned Assessing Officer had reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped. For the sake of completeness, we deem it just and proper to refer to the relevant

Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd, 2009-10 vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

during F.Y. 2008-09. Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2013-14 & 2014-2015 Gillanders Arbuthnot And Co. Limited In the above perspective, I have reasons to believe that income of the assessee chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2009-10 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section ... assessment proceedings in the regular return of income, the proceeding seems to be one-sided and ld. Assessing Officer without having any reason to believe has acted mechanically by not making proper application of mind on the transactions. Even during the course of assessment proceedings also, one-sided approach

Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd, 2009-10 vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 494/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

during F.Y. 2008-09. Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2013-14 & 2014-2015 Gillanders Arbuthnot And Co. Limited In the above perspective, I have reasons to believe that income of the assessee chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2009-10 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section ... assessment proceedings in the regular return of income, the proceeding seems to be one-sided and ld. Assessing Officer without having any reason to believe has acted mechanically by not making proper application of mind on the transactions. Even during the course of assessment proceedings also, one-sided approach

Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd, 2009-10 vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 493/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

during F.Y. 2008-09. Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2013-14 & 2014-2015 Gillanders Arbuthnot And Co. Limited In the above perspective, I have reasons to believe that income of the assessee chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2009-10 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section ... assessment proceedings in the regular return of income, the proceeding seems to be one-sided and ld. Assessing Officer without having any reason to believe has acted mechanically by not making proper application of mind on the transactions. Even during the course of assessment proceedings also, one-sided approach

Shri Virendra Mughumal Jangla, Dubai-Uae vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 57, Mumbai

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

ITA 4429/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawali T A. No. 4429/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2012-13) Cit(A) – 57, Shri.Virendra Mughumal Vs Aayakar Bhavan, Jangla,107, Sikkat Al . M.K.Road, Khalil Road, Near Down Mumbai-400020. Town Hotel, Ismail Abdul Ahmed Bldg, Shop No. 2, Al Buteen Fikree Market, Nariman Point S O, Deira Dubai Uae. Represented By Pramod Gupta & Associates, Chartered Accountants. 303,Indore Trade Center, 3/2,Sardar Patel Marg, Chhoti Gwaltoli, Indore. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. Anzpm5534B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Bhuwan Modi.Ar Revenue By Ms.Rajeshwari Menon.Sr.Dr

Section 69A

Shri Virendra Mughumal Jangla, Mumbai has not filed the return of income for the A.Y 2012-13 and the Assessing Officer (AO) has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act. Subsequently, the AO has issued notice u/sec

M/S Monk Akarshala Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4151/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blem/S. Monk Akarshala Private Limited V. Dcit – Circle – 2(2)(1) 4116 Oberoi Garden Estate Room No. 545 Chandivli Vlg Farm Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Near Chandivli Studio, Saki Naka Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai City - 400072 Pan: Aagcm4703K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa & Ms. Manasi Vyas Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

Section 234B

were not applicable to the assessment year in question, i.e., 2009-10, there would be no basis for the AO to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for the said assessment year.” 29. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2785/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer V. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli) R.N. 234, 2Nd Floor 12/A Yusuf Building Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc Veer Nariman Road, Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400051 Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aapfs0181B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan Department Represented By :

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

paper documentation of claim to give colour of genuinety to compensation. Hence, in the case of assessee, there exist substantial basis to form reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs 4.61 crores has escaped assessment. Page No. 3 Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli) 5. The provisions of section ... clearly states that, if the AO has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of section 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped

M/S R.S.Darshan Singh Motors Car Finance Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 265/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

undisclosed income of Rs. 35,00,000/- to its regular books of account for the AY 2013-14. 2.3. Thus, I have reason to believe that in this case Income has escaped to the tune of Rs. 35,00,000/- and consequent to the above facts, your kind approval ... quashed. 6. In the present case the order of ld. AO reveals that he received an information and there was a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of u/s 147 of the Act. Therefore, notice u/s 148 of the Act issued

Mamta Choraria, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 214/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mamta Choraria Income Tax Officer, Ward – 36(1), Bl-A2 Ganges Garden Vs Kolkata 106, K.C.S. Road Howrah -711102 [Pan : Aczpc6470F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 06/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Of Appeal, We Will Take Up The Legal Issue Challenging The Validity Of Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Time Limit To Issue Notice U/S 148 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2014- 15, Expired On 11/03/2021 & Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued & Served Through E-Mail On 01/04/2021. He Thus Contended That The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Is Barred By Limitation And, Therefore, The 2

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 148Section 250

held as follows:- “3. The assessee has contested the impugned addition on various ground, inter alia, that the Assessing Officer had no reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment; that the concerned Assessing Officer did not have territorial jurisdiction to frame the assessment and further

Sh. Ramnarayan Meena, Tonk vs. ITO, Ward-Tonk, Tonk

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

ITA 259/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

Assessing Officer believed that income earned by the assessee has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee. On this reason to believe the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The reasons were duly recorded by the Assessing Officer

ACIT Circle 46(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi vs. Yogesh Gambhir, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3018/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the Id. CIT(A)

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

Gaur for the course of MS ENT on 27.04.2010 amounting to Rs. 40,01,000/- In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income of Rs. 40,01,000/- has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose true and correct

Jagbir Singh, Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3250/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Yr: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

examine the similarity of the expression used under section 147(1) and 263(1). Under section 147(1), the expression used is "has reason to believe" and under section 263(1), the expression used is "if he considers". Though the expressions used are not verbatim parimateria, but the meaning which