← 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

Compact Texfab Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9524/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshcompact Texfab Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 1032, H. No. 66, Gali No. Ward-6(2), 33, Jafrabad, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcc3621P Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. For this purpose, mere mentioning in the reasons that AO has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment would not be sufficient. The ld. AO should have tangible material or information in his possession and such material / information ... Govil, Naman Govil and Padam Wires P Ltd to be genuine and had not made any addition thereon. Hence there cannot be any reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for these loan transactions and they cannot be construed as accommodation entries. With regard to loan from Olive Vinimay

Devinder Singh Sahney, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1585/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwal, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, Fenil Bhatt &For Respondent: S/Shri Miland Chavan & Anil Sant, Sr. DRs
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

case of Prashan S. Joshi vs. ITO, 324 ITR 154 to contend that the requirement that there must be a ‘valid reason to believe’ before issuance of notice u/s.147 of the Act must be satisfied. He pointed that in the aforesaid decision the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has considered

Hem Lata Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata.

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in this respect for AY 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 751/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

originally filed u/s. 139(1) reporting total income of Rs.34,05,980/-. Subsequently, Ld. AO issued notice u/s. 148 dated 28.03.2018 by recording reasons to believe that information was received from DDIT (Inv.) Unit-3(1), Kolkata with regard to systematic evasion of taxes by clients/members of the National Multi ... Commodity Exchange (NMCE) during different financial years by misusing the platform of NMCE. 4.1. In the reasons to believe so recorded by the Ld. AO, it is noted that assessee had taken bogus profit/loss of NMCE amounting to Rs.2,99,600/- through broker Sahal Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (Sahal

Hem Lata Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata.

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in this respect for AY 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 750/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

originally filed u/s. 139(1) reporting total income of Rs.34,05,980/-. Subsequently, Ld. AO issued notice u/s. 148 dated 28.03.2018 by recording reasons to believe that information was received from DDIT (Inv.) Unit-3(1), Kolkata with regard to systematic evasion of taxes by clients/members of the National Multi ... Commodity Exchange (NMCE) during different financial years by misusing the platform of NMCE. 4.1. In the reasons to believe so recorded by the Ld. AO, it is noted that assessee had taken bogus profit/loss of NMCE amounting to Rs.2,99,600/- through broker Sahal Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (Sahal

Thota Venkateswara Rao, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.221/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Thota Venkateswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.67-21-12/4 Ward-1 Lb Nagar Ss Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Abipt6770F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 187(3)Section 69A

Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd. (supra) held as follows : ………where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re- open the assessment. Therefore, post 1-4-1989 , power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give ... schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -23(1), Mumbai vs. Kalpsaru Diamonds, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3400/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

proceedings u/s.147 that it is trite law that at the time of initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, the condition precedent is reason to believe that income had of the Act, the condition precedent is reason to believe that income had of the Act, the condition precedent is reason

Kalpsaru Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ACIT 23(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3223/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

proceedings u/s.147 that it is trite law that at the time of initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, the condition precedent is reason to believe that income had of the Act, the condition precedent is reason to believe that income had of the Act, the condition precedent is reason

Sagar Babanrao Awatade, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panvel

Appeal is allowed

ITA 79/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.79/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Goyal &For Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

deal with sections 147 and 148 of the Act which is quoted hereinbelow : ”147. Income escaping assessment.—If the Assessing Officer, has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess ... going through the aforesaid definition it is abundantly clear that before opening any reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has to record reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year. Now coming back to the case we have to analyze

Kunal Ragahubir Bhandari, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO (It) Ward 1 (2) 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 3646/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151(1)

transaction remains undisclosed and the same are required to be considered in computing total income of the aSSES5Ee. 4. Basis of forming reason to believe. In this case, the assessee has purchased a flat and has done on money transaction of Rs.11,33,000/-. The income element in respect ... failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully & truly all material facts necessary thereto in his return of Income, I have reason to believe that the income at least to the extent of Rs. 11,33,000/-chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee has escaped

Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., Kutch vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is hereby allowed

ITA 676/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 676/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, Plot No.617/1-618-620, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), Nh-8A, Po. Samakhiyari (Piprapati), Ahmedabad Bhachau Taluka, Samakhiyari-370150. Pan: Aaics6992G

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

contradictory stand taken by the assessee as evident from the financial statement and computation of income. This contradictory stand of the assessee gives reason to believe that such mistakes has been committed by the assessee due to oversight and inadvertently, therefore we are of the view that the assessee should

Star Plastics, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennaui

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

ITA 707/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms.N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

noted that the AO has followed due procedure prescribed under the law to reopen the case for the year under consideration after having reason to believe that income in this case has escaped assessment. The CIT(A) noted that in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act dated ... income on 01.08.2018 admitting loss at Rs.1,35,37,362/-. The CIT(A) was of the view that the AO based his reason to believe on material available with him which had direct nexus with the factum of income escaping assessment and hence, he upheld the reopening. Aggrieved, assessee came

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vijay Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 638/BANG/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

unaccounted income. The whole principle of an assessment which is preceded by search is that an officer specified in section 132(1) has reason to believe in consequence of information in his possession that any of the eventualities stated in section 132(1)(a) to (c) exist. So there

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vinod Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 637/BANG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

unaccounted income. The whole principle of an assessment which is preceded by search is that an officer specified in section 132(1) has reason to believe in consequence of information in his possession that any of the eventualities stated in section 132(1)(a) to (c) exist. So there

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vinod Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/BANG/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

unaccounted income. The whole principle of an assessment which is preceded by search is that an officer specified in section 132(1) has reason to believe in consequence of information in his possession that any of the eventualities stated in section 132(1)(a) to (c) exist. So there

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1066/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 234BSection 271ASection 69

ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

153C assessment. The whole principle of an assessment which is preceded by search is that an officer specified in section 132(1) has reason to believe in consequence of information in his possession that any of the eventualities stated in section 132(1)(a) to (c) exist. So, there ... have been lying with him. During the course of search no cash was seized. Where did the cash go? If the AO had reason to believe that the funds are advanced based on the seized material, he would have made a substantive addition staring the documents like Loan Agreements

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

153C assessment. The whole principle of an assessment which is preceded by search is that an officer specified in section 132(1) has reason to believe in consequence of information in his possession that any of the eventualities stated in section 132(1)(a) to (c) exist. So, there ... have been lying with him. During the course of search no cash was seized. Where did the cash go? If the AO had reason to believe that the funds are advanced based on the seized material, he would have made a substantive addition staring the documents like Loan Agreements

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

153C assessment. The whole principle of an assessment which is preceded by search is that an officer specified in section 132(1) has reason to believe in consequence of information in his possession that any of the eventualities stated in section 132(1)(a) to (c) exist. So, there ... have been lying with him. During the course of search no cash was seized. Where did the cash go? If the AO had reason to believe that the funds are advanced based on the seized material, he would have made a substantive addition staring the documents like Loan Agreements

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

153C assessment. The whole principle of an assessment which is preceded by search is that an officer specified in section 132(1) has reason to believe in consequence of information in his possession that any of the eventualities stated in section 132(1)(a) to (c) exist. So, there ... have been lying with him. During the course of search no cash was seized. Where did the cash go? If the AO had reason to believe that the funds are advanced based on the seized material, he would have made a substantive addition staring the documents like Loan Agreements

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1(4), Kolkata vs. K Kalpana Industries India Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 816/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 815 & 816/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income K Kalpana Industries India Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kolkata 28, Pretoria Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabck2239D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 25/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days & 11 Days In Filing Of These Appeals By The Department For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. After Hearing The Ld. D/R We Are Convinced That It Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals On Time. Though The Department Has Not Filed Any Petition/Application For Condonation, The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Sesh Nath Singh & Ors. V. Baidyabati · Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 28Section 5

taxable income, but same was not done. Therefore I am convinced that the assessee suppressed its income & reduce tax liabilities. I have, therefore, reason to believe that income has escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee for the A. Y. 2011-12. 6 I.T.A. Nos. 815 & 816/Kol/2023 Assessment Year