← 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

The Marady Service Co-Op Bank Limited, Kochi vs. ITO Ward 1, Thodupuzha

In the result, the appeal file by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and

ITA 931/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Stay Application No. 68/Coch/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.931/Coch/2022) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Marady Service Co-Op. Bank Ito Ward 1, Limited Temple Bypass Road, Thodupuzha, No. E-57, South Marady Po, Kerala-676 10 Vs. Muattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala-686 673 Pan/Gir No. Aacat 5248 C (Assessee) (Respondent) : Assessee By : None Respondent By : Smt. J M. Jamuna Devi Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J M. Jamuna Devi
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80P

income for the year under consideration and the assessee’s case was reopened by the ld. Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) on the reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The ld. A.O. issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act which was duly served upon

Anil Chothmal Patodia HUF, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)- Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 4060/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

having complied with the jurisdictional safeguards mandated in section 147 of the Act. The AO erred in assuming jurisdiction without having any valid reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and recorded his reasons merely on surmises and conjectures. The AO has incorrectly alleged that ... assessee's income is not subject to scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, for the year under consideration and I have reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment within the meaning of Explanation

Maya Milind Sirsath, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 33(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3562/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 69A

exit providers and statement of Director of M/s Nimbus Industries Ltd was recorded. 5. In view of the above I have reason to believe that the income to the extent of Rs. 5,69,501/-chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section ... assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act was made. Accordingly, in this case the only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return of income

JCIT (It) (OSD)-4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Arun Rangachari, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 2393/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2009-10
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 254(2)Section 9(1)(i)

companies amounting to Rs. 307.03 crores. However, the assessee has not explain the source of investment. In view of the above,, I have reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 465 crores and investment to the tune of Rs.307.03 crores has escaped assessment

Seema Singh, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 32(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 2777/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Seema Singh, Vs Ito, E-65, Chatterpur Extension, Near Ward-32(3), Suman Chowk, New Delhi-110074. New Delhi. Pan-Cazps4606K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pulkit Verma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 29.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Court in the decisions discussed hereinbefore, the basic requirement that the AO must apply his mind to the materials in order to have reasons to believe that the income of the Assessee has escaped assessment is missing in the present case." Similarly Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ... assessment order dated 12.12.2018 was passed ex-parte. Further, it is trite that once the reasons recorded are factually incorrect the reasons to believe are without any foundations. In support, kind reference is invited to the following precedents of the Jurisdictional High Court and various Tribunals: - i. Artech Infosystems reported

Jagrutiben Ambalal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward- 3(2)(7), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 329/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was selected for reopening under Section 148 of the Act for the reason to believe that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.10,00,500/- during the Assessment Year 2011-12 which was not disclosed in her income. Notice

Ravi Gopal Trivedy, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 4062/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ravi Gopal Trivedy 402, Sheetal, A Wing, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 Pan : Abсрт1927А Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4062/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Appellant) Respondent) Appellant/Assessee By Dr. K. Shivaram A/W Mr. Shashi Bekal, Ca Revenue/Respondent By Shri R.R. Makwana, Jcit Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short 'The Cit(A)] Dated 16.10.2023 For The Ay 2013-14. The Assessee Raised The Following Revised Grounds: 2

Section 143(1)Section 148

other hand submitted that the re-opening is done based on the information received by the AO and therefore, the AO had reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment. The ld. DR further submitted that the mere fact that the amount mentioned in the reasons recorded not matching ... analysis of details available on records, it is noticed that the genuineness of the said transactions is not conclusively proved. Hence, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax more than Rs.1,00,000/- has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee

Chaudhary Stone Crusher, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Saharanpur

In the result of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2314/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshchaudhary Stone Crusher, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sh. C. S. Anand, Ward-3(1), Advocate, 104, Pankaj Saharanpur, Tower, 10, L. S. C. Savita Vihar, Delhi-92 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagfc5621D Assessee By : Shri C. S. Anand, Adv Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

undisclosed income which has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2011-12. Hence, considering the above facts prima facie, I have reason to believe that income of Rs.91,74,000/- has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2011-12. Accordingly, proposal u/s 151(1) is being submitted to the Pr. Commissioner of Income

Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1912/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

transactions by means of CCM, the assessee has artificially. Considering the above referred credible information and analysis subsequent to the information, I have reason to believe that the case is squarely covered under provisions of section 147 of Income- tax Act, 1961 to the tune of Rs.13,87,600/-. Since

Manju Devi Shah, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1280/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.1280/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Manju Devi Shah……………..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant P-281 Scheme Vim Cit Road, Kankurgachi, Kolkata-700054. [Pan: Amkps3650G] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(4), Kolkata.......…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bibekananda Madhu, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 29, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 22, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Apart From Challenging The Additions On Merits Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities Of Rs.42,12,703/- U/S 68 Of The Act By Treating The Long-Term Capital Gains Earned By The Assessee As Bogus, Has Also Challenged The Very Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment. 3. Since, The Legal Grounds Relating To The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment Hit At The Very Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer To

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

issued after obtaining approval from the ld. PCIT-17, Kolkata for initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act after recording reasons to believe. The ld. counsel pointing out to the aforesaid documents has submitted that the first notice sent to the assessee on the last date of limitation ... 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

Shah Construction Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 859/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(iii)

part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for A.Y.2008-09 leading to the escapement of income. I have reason to believe that income in excess of 21 lakh has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2008-09, and also any of the income chargeable to tax which ... 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

Ramya Vadlamudi, Gudiwada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gudiwada

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

ITA 72/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.72/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ramya Vadlamudi Vs. Income Tax Officer 10-154, Opp. E-Seva Ward-2 Rajendra Nagar Gudiwada Gudiwada, Krishna Dist. [Pan : Ajnpv4972A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

case, learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have observed that learned AO has not demonstrated in the assessment order that she had the ‘reason to believe’ that income escaped assessment before the issue of Notice u/s 148. In its absence, the basis for Notice was only AIR information, in which case

I.T.O., Ward-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Gabhawala Tax Advisors Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Known As M/S Ostrich Tie Up Pvt. Ltd.), Gurubagh

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 1831/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N on eFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 5(2)Section 6Section 68

reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act and has erred in appreciating the facts that the A.O. has recorded his reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment while reopening the case for year under consideration for reassessment. 3. That on the facts and circumstances

Mr Manish Rajnarain Goswami, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3960/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blemanish Rajnarain Goswami V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(3) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Metropolitan Chsl Mumbai - 400020 B-6 / B-8, Nargisdas Road Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Addpg7655D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

said notice read as under: - “Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Sir/ Madam/ M/s, Whereas I have reasons to believe that your Income chargeable to Tax for the Assessment Year 2011-12 has escaped Assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income ... Amount Shell Company 1 Wheelers Developers 2010-11 1,50,00,000 Pvt., Ltd., 4. In view thereof there is basis of reasons to believe that there is an escapement of income of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Therefore, this is a fit case for reopening under section

Ganesh Shankar Pujare, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Kudal

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

ITA 40/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.40/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ganesh Shankar Pujare, Vs. Ito, Ward, Kudal. Bidyewadi, At Post Kalmath, Taluka Kankavli, Sindhudurg- 416602. Pan : Anipp5657R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar : Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Assailing The Order Dated 08.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A) [‘Nfac’] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. Legality & Validity Of Reassessment Proceeding; 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Re-Assessment Proceeding Initiated By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law As The Same Is Based On Suspicious & Incorrect Information. Hence, As The Formation Of Belief Is Based On Incorrect, Suspicious & Vague Facts Same Is Unsus Tainable In Eye Of Law. 2. On The Facts & In Law, There Is Serious Jurisdictional Requirement In The Reasons Recorded By The Assessing Officer As He

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Hence, Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, merely on basis of suspicion do not prima facie make out case of “reason to believe” that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned Notice under Section 148 dated

Shankar Nagappa Jadagouda, Kolhapur vs. NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 381/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 147Section 148

adjudication is that of validity of the impugned reopening/re-assessment itself. This is for the precise reason that the Assessing Officer had recorded his reasons to believe that the assessee’s taxable income, representing cash deposits of Rs.12,81,150/- made in the State Bank of India, Laxmipuri Branch, 2 ITA.No ... assessee’s favour as under : “5. The condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 147 is the formation of a reason to believe by the Assessing Officer that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Upon the formation or a reason to believe, the Assessing Officer

Rohit Kumar Yadav, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 5(5), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 442/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirohit Kumar Yadav Ito 5(5) Hig-Dx-2Manishmati Arvind Indore Vihar, Mahishmati Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaupy5015 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2024

Section 50C

Assessing Officer had included such income in the block assessment, Page 4 of 9 ITANo.442/Ind/2023 Rohit Kumar Yadav but he still has the reason to believe that this income is also taxable in the regular assessment. This presumption will belie the concept of reassessment which is always there

P and Y Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (2) 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 3685/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Ito P & Y Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Ward 5 (2) 1 123, A Wing Mittal Court, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai 400021 M K Road, Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcp2579B Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri H M Bhatt, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri H M Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194ASection 68

under Section. 148, though had been issued in absence of fresh tangible material and on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without having reason to believe of escapement of income; 2. ON facts and circumstance of the case and in law, Learned. CIT(A), on ignoring the direct evidences, erred

V.K.Nanavaty Share and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2614/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2614/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) V. K. Nanavaty Share & बिधम/ Ito, Ward-4(2)(4) R. No. 647, 6Th Floor, Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd Vs. R-709, Rotunda Building, Aaykar Bhavan, Bombay Stock Exchange, Maharishi Karve Road, M. S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai- Churchgate, Mumbai- 400023. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv9670N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue By: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 30.05.2023 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First.

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

that before reopening an assessment, the AO has to record the reasons wherein he has to spell out the “Reasons to believe, escapement of income”. It is well settled that “Reasons to believe” postulate 4 A.Y. 2012-13 V. K. Nanavaty Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. foundation based ... decision in Aroni Commercial Ltd. (362 ITR 403). In addition, one should bear in mind the fine distinction between “Reason to Suspect” and “Reason to believe”. Information adverse may trigger “Reason to Suspect” which is not sufficient to reopen an assessment because as per section

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Sanjay Kishanlal Bishnoi, Ahmedabad

ITA 297/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Umedsingh Bhati & Sh. Abhimanyu SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Subhendu Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 253(3)Section 69C

Ahmedabad. ARREST OF SHRI OMPRAKASH KISHANLAL BISHNOI. 6. From the statements and documentary evidences available on record, it appeared that there were reasons to believe that Shri Omprakash Bishnoi, Authorised Person of M/s. Bishnoi Trading Corporation, Ahmedabad, had committed an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs ... omission and commission on his part, he had indulged in the smuggling of imported goods which he knew or had reasons to believe that the said goods were liable to confiscation under Section III(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the goods so imported were to be treated