“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

Riteshkumar Bhupendrabhai Choksi, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Bharuch

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

ITA 341/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

ignoring the submissions and legal decisions in which it is held that deposits in bank account is not REASON TO BELIEVE that it is income escaping assessment. It be so held now and as conditions of section 147 are not satisfied, reassessment be held to be invalid and be quashed

Jani Properties Private Limited, Raigad vs. DCIT, Panvel, Circle-Panvel

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

ITA 2168/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak and Ajinkya M VaishampayanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50C

declared null and void. 3] The assessee submits that the reopening u/s 148 is based on reason to suspect and not reason to believe and therefore, the reopening u/s 148 is incorrect and the reasst. order passed u/s 147 be declared null and void. 4] The learned CIT(A) erred

Mr. Dollar Chunilal Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7189/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()**

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 54F

there is no capital gain shown by the assessee in his HUF capacity* - *3. In view of the above mentioned facts, I have reason to believe that the assessee's income has escaped assessment. Therefore, the case of the assessee is reopended as per the provisions of section

Zany Share Trading Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-8(3)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4991/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s.148, issued in absence of tangible material, without independent application of mind and without having reason to believe of escapement of income; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A), upon holding the transactions of purchase

Independent and Public Spirited Media Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 625/BANG/2023[Nill]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : Na

For Appellant: S/Shri. A. Sheshadri, CA and Bhardwaj Sheshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 133A

necessarily prospective. What it provides that the Commissioner has statutory powers to cancel the registration u/s. 12A/12AA if he finds reason to believe that the activities of the assessee are not in line with its objects or the activities carried out by the assessee are not genuine in nature

Anil Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-26, Jhandewalan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

other words, merely stating the reasons in a letter addressed by the AO to the Assessee is to be avoided; (ii) the reasons to believe ought to spell out all the reasons and grounds available with the AO for reopening the assessment - especially in those cases where the first proviso ... Section 147 is attracted. The reasons to believe ought to also paraphrase any investigation report which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO on the same and if so, the conclusions thereof; (iii) where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether

Jeevan Kaur, Rudrapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Rudrapur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 179/DDN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 179/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Jeevan Kaur, Vs Income Tax Officer, Mig 348, Avasvikas Colony, Rudrapur, U. S. Nagar, Rudrapur, Uttarakhand-263153 Rudrapur, Uttarakhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bpupk1462C Assessee By : Sh. Prashant Kacker, Ca Revenue By : Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Panaji’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1079082400(1) Dated 30.07.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Sh. Prashant Kacker, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

Jeevan Kaur ITO, Ward-49(4), Delhi who had issued section 148 notice dated 31.03.2019 to her after having recorded his reason to believe that the corresponding taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment. And that the ITO, Ward-2(1)(4) thereafter framed his assessment

Navyug Nirman Shaikshanik Sansthan, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Patna

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

ITA 477/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.477/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Navyug Nirman Shaikshanik Sansthan. …………………....Appellant Guru Kripa, Shiv Raj Yadav Path, Mohanpur, Punaichak, Po- L B S Nagar, Patna, Bihar- 800023. [Pan: Aaefn5170A] Vs. Dcit, Cc-1, Patna………….…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Kr. Adv. Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manab Advak, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2025 Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Firm & Had Not Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19. An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.1,10,77,405/- In The Bank Account During The Relevant Assessment Year. As There Was Reason To Believe That The Amount Of Rs. 1,10,77,405/- Was Escaped Assessment, The Case Of The

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.1,10,77,405/- in the bank account during the relevant assessment year. As there was reason to believe that the amount of Rs. 1,10,77,405/- was escaped assessment, the case of the I.T.A. No.477/Pat/2025 Navyug Nirman Shaikshanik Sansthan assessee

Asif Abdulhak Soudagar, Kumta vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2, Karwar, Karawar

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

ITA 145/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.145/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Asif Abdulhak Soudagar, National E – Vs Soudagar Chicken Centre, Assessment Centre, . Old Fish Market Road, Delhi-110001. Kumta, . Uttarakannada-581343, Karnataka. Pan: Diyps8481L (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 144

with HDFC Bank and (ii) Rs.7,98,35,150/- account maintained with ICICI Bank Limited during the F.Y2018-19. The Assessing Officer (A.O) has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act and there was no compliance. Further the Assessing Officer has issued

Balu Vithal Pawale, Pune vs. ITO WD- 2(4), Pune

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

ITA 2869/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2869/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Balu Vithal Pawale, V Assessing Officer, Village-Kasarsai, S National Faceless Taluka-Mulsi, Assessment Centre, Dist-Pune – 410506. Delhi Pan:Bfcpp7170L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 16.10.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 27.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 144BSection 147rSection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

immovable property valued at Rs.1,24,50,000/- The assessee's share in this transaction is 5 Rs.53,00,000. I have therefore, reason to believe that the income ITA No.2869/PUN/2025 [A] chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.53,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section

ACIT, Circle -34(1), Delhi vs. Vishakha Builders LLP, Delhi

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

ITA 693/DEL/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 80G

around 17 times of the Total income of the assessee, is against the principles ITA No.693/Del/2025 of Accounting. Hence, AO has a Strong Reason To Believe, that this practice of the assessee is exceptional and is sourced from unexplained money. Thereafter the assessee was show caused ... fund of around 17 times of the Total income of the assessee, is against the principles of Accounting. Hence, AO has a Strong Reason To Believe, that this practice of the assessee is exceptional and is sourced from unexplained money. In the view of above points, it is inferred that

Sharda Devi, Basti vs. Income Tax Officer, Basti

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

ITA 525/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Sharda Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, W/O Shyam Singh, Near Zila Basti-New Chikitsalaya, Purani Basti, Basti-2721 Pan: Auspd8424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 16.01.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Penalty Passed By The Ld. Ao Dated 17.01.2022 In Limine Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period Under Section 69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law Be Deleted. 02. Because The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Is Carrying On The Business Of Household Items, Such As, Business Of Achar, Kuchry (Grocery) Declaring Profit Under Section 44Ad @ 8% Wherein The Provisions Of Section 68 & Section 69 Are Not Applicable, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law Be Deleted. 03. Because The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee Has Not Been Found False Of Untrue, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 271ASection 44ASection 68Section 69Section 69A

disposal of the appeal order, which the AO would have been obliged to do. Keeping that in mind, there appears to be reason to believe the assessee when she says that she did not receive a copy of the notice. It also explains the delay in the filing

Simatajvar Yusufkhan Khan, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Vadodara

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 243/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Investigation Wing of the department revealed that as per the MOU the entire deal was of Rs.151 Crores. Accordingly, the AO formed reason to believe that income to the extent of amount received in the respective years had escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of Section ... Rs.151 crores. ITA Nos. 240 to 243/Ahd/2022 [Simatajvar Yusufkhan Khan vs. ITO] - 12 – 4. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that the income to the extent of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of the provisions of section

Simatajvar Yusufkhan Khan, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Vadodara

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 242/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Simatajvar Yusufkhan Khan, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1(5), Vadodara

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 241/AHD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Simatajvar Yusufkhan Khan, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1(5, Vadodara

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 240/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Sachin Manilal Shah, Panvel vs. ITO Ward 2, Panvel

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

ITA 1925/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1925/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Manilal Shah, Vs Ito Ward 2, D1/2, 1St Floor, Shiv Panvel Complex Municipal Office Road, Near Gokhale Hall, Panvel-410206 Maharashtra Pan-Atcps2791R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik Makwana and Shri Sanjay KabraFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

file the return of income for A.Y. 2013-14. Based on the information about purchase of immovable property Ld. AO had reason to believe that the income to the extent of Rs. 1,39,19,000/- has escaped. Ld. AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 04.03.2020 duly

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Vedanta Resources Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed and

ITA 1845/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148

link between the tangible material and formation of [5 ITA No. 1845/KOL/2025&CO No. 80/KOL/2025 Vedanta Resources Private Limited; A.Y. 2016-17 the reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment, as under: - "26. The first part of Section 147 (1) of the Act requires the AO to have ... reasons to believe" that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It is thus formation of reason to believe that is subject matter of examination. The AO being a quasi judicial authority is expected to arrive at a subjective satisfaction independently on an objective criteria. While the report

Nezone Tubes Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 180/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

escaped assessment in terms of section 147 of the I.T Act, 1961. I, therefore, am fully satisfied that there is reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs.42,61,133/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act. This is for your information

Nezone Tubes Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 179/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68