← 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

Crosseas Capital Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Central-2(4), Mumba

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed

ITA 3418/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Crosseas Capital Assistant Commissioenr Of Services P. Ltd., Income Tax (Central Suite 37, 5Th Floor, Circle)-2(4), Martin Burn House, Vs. 802, 8Th Floor, 1 Rn Mukherjee Road, Pratishtha Bhavan, Kolkata, Old Cgo Annexe, West Bengal - 700 001 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aaccc5470H Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina , A.R. & Shri Maneck Andhyarujina, Ar. Revenue By : Shri H.M. Bhatt, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : All These Four Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19 &

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina , A.R. &For Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, D.R
Section 234BSection 250Section 37(1)

notice under section 148 the AO accepts the contention of the assessee and holds that income for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Crosseas Capital Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Central -2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 3417/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, D.R
Section 234BSection 250Section 37(1)

notice under section 148 the AO accepts the contention of the assessee and holds that income for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Shanno Mohammed Yusuf Warsi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 1306/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Pankaj SoniFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68Section 69C

assessee obtained accommodation entries of bogus long obtained accommodation entries of bogus long-term capital gain, term capital gain, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment and issued ... Rajasthan)(05- -02-2022] wherein it has been held in respect of valid 2022] wherein it has been held in respect of valid reason to believe that income had escaped reason to believe that income had escaped assessment is as follows: assessment is as follows:- "......7. In this context

Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 13 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3712/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

recorded reasons for reopening and has record, the A.O. has recorded reasons for reopening and has satisfied himself that there is a reason to believe that income has himself that there is a reason to believe that income has himself that there is a reason to believe that income ... have escaped assessment. Sec 147 provides that the A.O. has to have escaped assessment. Sec 147 provides that the A.O. has to have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped reason to believe that

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. The assessment for assessment year 2009-10 was reopened u/s.147 of the Act, since there was reason to believe that the assessee has claimed bad debt of Rs.55,92,38,563/- despite the fact that there was no business carried ... with effect from April 1, 1989. The relevant part of the new Section 147 is as follows : "147. 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

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. The assessment for assessment year 2009-10 was reopened u/s.147 of the Act, since there was reason to believe that the assessee has claimed bad debt of Rs.55,92,38,563/- despite the fact that there was no business carried ... with effect from April 1, 1989. The relevant part of the new Section 147 is as follows : "147. 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

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. The assessment for assessment year 2009-10 was reopened u/s.147 of the Act, since there was reason to believe that the assessee has claimed bad debt of Rs.55,92,38,563/- despite the fact that there was no business carried ... with effect from April 1, 1989. The relevant part of the new Section 147 is as follows : "147. 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

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Viral Saraf Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1843/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(2) V. Viral Saraf Mittal Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 901/902, Capri Heights Old Cgo Annex Building Palli Hill, Bandra (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Azbps0317C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sidharth Kothari Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

another person in issuing the notice. Moreover, the tangible material upon the basis of which the Assessing Officer comes to the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment can come to him from any source, however, reasons for the reopening has to be only ... same issue being treated as information Page No. 12 Viral Saraf Mittal so as to justify the reopening of the assessment. The expression "reason to believe in section 147 of the Act has been held to mean a cause or justification. It is also the position that at the stage

Ramkunwar Patidar, Bhopal vs. The ITO 2 (4), Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 208/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming AO’s action of making addition on the ground other than the ground mentioned in “reason to believe” in notice issued u/s 148. 10. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining reopening made by the AO u/s 148 on the basis

Nandkumar Namdeorao Diwate, Kolhapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1161/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1161/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nandkumar Namdeorao Diwate, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), 492, C-Ward, Kolhapur Opp. Main Rajaram Highschool, Juna Rajwada, Karveer, Kolhapur, Maharashtra-416001 Pan : Aeqpd 1603L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

line of authority, to which a reference has already been made earlier, adopted the principle that where the Assessing Officer has formed a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and has issued a notice under section 148 on certain specific issues, it was not open to him during ... section 147 by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009. The effect of the Explanation is that once an Assessing Officer has formed a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and has proceeded to issue a notice under section 148, it is open

Balajiconstruction (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Kolkata.

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

ITA 762/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anup Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

respect of transaction made in the bank account with Indus Ind Bank, Burrabazar, Kolkata. It is also not discernible what was the reason to believe which was recorded for the purpose of reopening of the matter u/s. 147 vis-à-vis the conclusion drawn by the Ld. AO and treating ... against what is prayed by the Ld. Counsel, for de novo adjudication of the matter. We direct the AO to provide reasons to believe recorded for the purpose of reopening u/s. 147 and provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to make its submissions and explanations 4 Balaji

Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cer-1, Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1274/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4

regular books. 4. In view of the above findings from records and on the basis of aforementioned creditable information, 1 have reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 13,00,000/- chargeable to tax 1ms escaped assessment within the meaning of section

Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, C.C-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1232/KOL/2023[AAACV9131E]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4

regular books. 4. In view of the above findings from records and on the basis of aforementioned creditable information, 1 have reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 13,00,000/- chargeable to tax 1ms escaped assessment within the meaning of section

Lisamma Sebastian, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Kota

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

ITA 661/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 69A

after affording sufficient opportunities to the appellant. Section 147 along with the first proviso is reproduced here under "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 section ... truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year." 4.5.2 The section merely says that the AO has to have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Reason to believe can be on the basis of any information which comes

Vanpool Consulting and Advisory Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2068/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevanpool Consulting & Advisory Pvt., Ltd., V. Dcit – Cc – 1(2) 1501, Orient Height Room No. 906, Ninth Floor Rajaram Mohanrai Road Pratishtha Building, M.K. Road Grant Road (E), Mumbai - 400004 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacv2355C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.V. Desai Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153C

Shri Jitendra Salecha for carrying out the aforesaid activities for commission income. Based on the above information, Assessing Officer observed that he had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose true and full facts

M/S. Dahisar Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO-7(1), Kolkata.

In the result, ITA No. 1069/KOL/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1069/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 68

reflected in the books of accounts for the F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to the AY 2011-12. So, I have reason to believe that the assessee company has concealed its income of Rs. 13.03 crore. In this case 4 years has been elapsed but 6 years from ... Page 3 of 5 I.T.A. No.: 1069/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Dahisar Traders Pvt. Ltd. proceeding u/s 147 of the Act recording “reason to believe” which has been recorded above. In view of the above facts, the provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 of Section 147 is applicable

Saravanan Priya, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 15(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1245/CHNY/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

that section provided that where a person acquired a capital asset from an assessee connected with him and the Income-Tax Officer had reason to believe that the transfer was effected with a view to avoid or reduce the liability of the assessee under Section

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 369/JPR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

conclude that before assuming jurisdiction under this provision, the AO has to satisfy two important preconditions : first, the AO has reason to believe ( earlier it was simply his opinion ) and secondly, there should be some income chargeable which has escaped the assessment . Until and unless, the AO satisfies these ... held that the powers of the ITO to reopen assessment,though wide ,are not plenary. The words of the statute are “ reason to believe” and not “reason to suspect”. The reopening of an assessment after a lapse of many years is a serious matter. If apply this ratio decidendi

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

conclude that before assuming jurisdiction under this provision, the AO has to satisfy two important preconditions : first, the AO has reason to believe ( earlier it was simply his opinion ) and secondly, there should be some income chargeable which has escaped the assessment . Until and unless, the AO satisfies these ... held that the powers of the ITO to reopen assessment,though wide ,are not plenary. The words of the statute are “ reason to believe” and not “reason to suspect”. The reopening of an assessment after a lapse of many years is a serious matter. If apply this ratio decidendi

Tanuj Properties Private Limited., Kolkata vs. I.T.O, Ward-9(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1045/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1045/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Tanuj Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Darshan Tradelink Pvt. Ltd……………….…………....Appellant 6Th Floor, Unit-6A, 238A, A.J.C. Bose Road, L.R. Sarani S.O., Kolkata - 700020 [Pan: Aacct4910B] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata…………….................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnine Debarma, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 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 20.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order U/S 147/143(3) Was Passed By The A.O Who Did Not Hold Valid Jurisdiction & Therefore The Impugned Order Being Ab Initio Void Deserves To Be Quashed. B) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued In The Name Of Non-Existent Entity & In

Section 147Section 148Section 250

Services Limited by the assessee was Rs.19,43,028/- during the F.Y 2011-12. Simply on this information, he held that he had reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment for the assessment year under consideration amounting to Rs.19,43,028/-. The Assessing Officer also ... relevant year has expired in this case the requirements to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act are reasons to believe that income for the year under consideration has escaped assessment because of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary