“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

ITO, Ward-52(1), New Delhi vs. Arti Jindal, Delhi

ITA 1502/DEL/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

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

assessing officer erred in law and on facts in issuing the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act as there existed no valid reason to believe for the purpose. 3. The assessing officer failed to obey the dictating guidelines ordained by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in Sabli ... order of the_ Hon'ble ITAT deleting the additions on merits does not vitiate the reassessment proceedings and has no bearing on the reasons to believe recorded on 21-02-2006 for initiating the re-assessment proceedings. The assessee filed a Writ before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

Indira Gandhi, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer 29(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2530/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleindira Gandhi, Vs. Ito – 29(1)(5) 101,1Stflr,Tulip E & F 107,1St Floor, C-10, Chs Ltd, Mayureshpark, Pratyakshakarbhavan, Bhandup (West), Bkc, Mumbai-400078. Mumbai-400078. Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpg7601H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Milind Phadke.ARFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 68

received the information that the assessee has made time deposits exceeding Rs. 2 lakhs in the F.Y 2010- 11, therefore the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In compliance to notice, the assessee has filed the return

ITO, Thane vs. Rajendra Hastimal Mehta, Thane

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

ITA 2400/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito, Ward – 2(1), Vs. Shri Rajendrahastimal Room No. 25, B-Wing Mehta (Huf), 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Flat No.101/102, Wagle Industrial Estate, C-62, Sector-5, Shanti Thane (W)-400604, Nagar, Mira Road (E), Maharashtra. Thane-401107, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. : Aaahr4446M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rajendra.H.Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .G.J. Ninawe.Sr. DR

found that the assessee has not filed the return of income and therefore has a reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice Shri Rajendra Hastimal Mehta (HUF), Mumbai. u/sec 148 of the Act. The AO has considered the facts and submissions in respect

M/S. Sabari Developers, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

ITA 5388/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Satish Kumar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, D.R

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151

merely repeating the facts recorded by the investigation wing without establishing any direct link between the tangible material and the formation of the reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. (vi) Without disposing off the objections raised by the assessee by a speaking order before

Cricket Australia, Australia vs. DCIT, Int, Taxation Circle-1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 605/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194E

India as M/s. Cricket Australia has not filed return in India for A.Y. 2013-14. 5. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the income during the FY 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14 has escaped assessment as defined u/s. 147 of the Income ... issued in this case. 6. In this case, the only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s. 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above. This case is beyond four years & within six years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, approval

Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(7), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 530/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.530/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, Vs. The Ito, 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Ward-2(3)(7), Jin Shanti Building, Surat Surat – 395003, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 12/10/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2023

Section 132Section 144Section 147Section 148

accommodation entry provider admitted before investigation wing that he has given such entry to various persons; based on such report the AO has reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and thus the action of AO in reopening is justified. 18. We find that

Chheda Specialities Foods Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-12(1)-4, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2305/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhchheda Specialities Vs. Ito-12(1)(4) Foods Pvt. Ltd. 145A, Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. 7, Bmc Ind M. K. Road, Estate, Sai Nagar, Churchgate, Mg Road No. 1, Mumbai-400020 Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccc6221G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Singh

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 37

profit. The total of such bogus purchase works out to Rs. 200,000/- In the view of the above facts, I have a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs. 200,000/- has escaped assessment, within the meaning of provision of section ... High Court of Delhi held that where the reason failed to demonstrate link between the tangible material and form of reason to believe income of escaped assessment then consequently reassessment is unjustified. Following the decision of Hon‟ble High Courts we consider that in the case of the assessee

DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mota Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2195/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

examined along with return of income of the assessee. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I have reason to believe that the income of the assessee M/s. Mota Trading Private Limited chargeable to tax for the AY. 2011-12 amounting to at least Rs.1

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Sohni Depak Tanna, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2245/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm C.O.No. 135/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Sohni Dipak Tanna Ito 1(1)(1), Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Tanna House, 11A, 534, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nathlal Parekh Marg, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acept3611J Sohni Dipak Tanna Ito 1(1)(1), Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Tanna House, 11A, 534, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nathlal Parekh Marg, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acept3611J Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal & Pankaj Jain Revenue By : Shri. Kishor Dhule Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal & PankajFor Respondent: Shri. Kishor Dhule

Section 10Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

long-term A.Y. 2014-15 Sohni Dipak Tanna capital gain coordinate with the modus operandi and the information received by the undersigned. 6. Reason to believe:- considering the facts narrated above and the circumstances of the case, I have reason to believe that the taxable income of the assessee amounting ... under section 143 (3) of the act was made. Accordingly, in this case, the only requirement to initiate proceedings under section 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above (above referred paragraphs). It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2334/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AdvaniFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

return of income and this income therefore has escaped assessment. This evidence has come into the possession of the undersigned; therefore, I have reason to believe that the income to the extent of at least USD 2355851.60 has escaped assessment within the meaning of para (d) to the Explanation ... residential status on merits, but that is not the question as on now. The question is whether the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe income escaping the assessment, or not. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that at the stage of issuance of notice, the Assessing

Shri Mohammad Abbas Ashraf, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Srinagar

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

ITA 207/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Yashender Garg, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 44A

Income tax Act 1961. The AIR information can arouse suspicion that income has escaped assessment, but the same cannot be a reason to believe that income mentioned therein has escaped assessment. In Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO [1981] 130 ITR I, the Apex Court has stated that ... words and the phrase used, "has reason to believe", and in the first part of Section 147 of the Act were stronger than the word "satisfied". The belief entertained by the assessing authority must not be arbitrary or irrational. It must be reasonable, or, in other words, it must

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Bhilai, Durg vs. Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd., Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 241/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.241/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 1(1), V Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd, Bhilai, Durg S Bsp Premises, Slag Yard Road (Opp Sector 4 Nmoh), Bhilai Pan: Aadcb1675Q (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri. R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 30-10-2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

held that where original assessment orders were silent on aspect on which reopening had been ordered, it could not be said that reason to believe constituted a change of opinion. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in allowing ... beginning of the hearing, Ld. SR DR on behalf of the department has submitted that since the Ld. AO have reason to believe that the assessee company had violated the provisions of section 269SS & 269D of the Act and also deposited the employee’s contribution to EPF beyond

Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 375/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 148

basis of borrowed satisfaction of some other authority. She has also mentioned that “Therefore based on the above information, I have reason to believe that the assessee company has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the AY 2012-13 and therefore ... linked by any reason to come to the conclusion that the Respondent Assessee has indulged in any activity which could give rise to reason to believe on the part of the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax has escaped Assessment. It is for this reason that the recorded reasons

Cricket South Africa (Npc), South Africa vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 604/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 194ESection 195

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle1(1), Raipur vs. Akshay Lodha, Raipur

ITA 160/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 160/Rpr/2022 Co No.10/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Akshay Lodha B-26, 27 Gate No.11, Pandri, Textile Market Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Acipl3634P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250

payments were made during the year under consideration; the A.O. reopened his case u/s.147 of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the “reasons to believe” forming the very basis for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act in the case of the assessee are culled out as follows: 6 ACIT ... assessee, the CIT(Appeals) observed that a perusal of the 8 ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur Vs. Akshay Lodha CO. 10/RPR/2022 “reasons to believe” did not indicate how the purchases of Rs.2,32,24,493/- (supra) as therein stated pertained to the assessee. Also, he observed that the scanned list

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Meserss T.C. Buildcon Private Limited, Raipur

In the result CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 173/RPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F Cross Objection No. 26/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 173/Rpr/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16-08-2023 घोषणाक" तार"ख/Date : 27-10-2023 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Rs.3,96,77,284 - Rs. 34,02,700)] escaped assessment for the relevant A.Y. 2011-12. 4.1 After recording reason to believe, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated on 26.03.2018, subsequently, with the necessary approval from the competent authority i.e. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur, notice ... only, therefore, the addition made was not in conformity with the reasons recorded and, thus, in absence of reason to believe as mandated by law u/s 147, which is sine qua non for assuming valid jurisdiction to reopen the case, the reopening u/s 147(148) is liable to be quashed

The Income Tax Officer Ward, 2, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Shri Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal, Jashpur (C.G.)

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 223/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 223/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer-2, Raigarh (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 41(4)Section 69

u/s.147 of the Act, we shall first deal with the same. Before proceeding any further, it would be relevant to cull out the “reasons to believe” on the basis of which the concluded assessment of the assessee that was originally framed vide order passed u/s 143(3), dated ... Bridge Cons. Div. Raigarh 5. O/o. The EE, PWD, 865927/- 865927/- Raigarh Total 1149738/- 1895121/- 3044859/- I have, therefore, a reason to believe that section 69 of the Income Tax Act has been violated, so income of the assessee has escaped assessment for the A.Y.2010-11, therefore………..” 20. Admittedly

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Magnifique Gems Private Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 458/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.389 & 458/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Magnifique Gems Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 105, Rajshree Building, Maniyara 1(1)(4), Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Sheri Na Naka,Mahidharpura, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395003. Civil Hospital, Surat-395001

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

taken accommodation entry in the form of bogus purchase from Rose Gems Pvt. Ltd. In view of the above the Assessing Office had reason to believe that the income of the assessee to the extent of Rs.10,53,02,132/- had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section ... accommodation entry provider admitted before investigation wing that he has given such entry to various persons; based on such report the AO has reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and thus the action of AO in reopening is justified. 18. We find that

Magnifique Gems Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 389/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Viral Lavjibhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat

In the result, assessee`s appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 450/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.450/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Viral Lavjibhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-18, Naginawadi Society, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat, Aaykar Sumul Dairy Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. Surat – 395004. New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alvpp2897E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/10/2023

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

conferred u/s 147 of the Act. The ld Counsel further contended that Assessing Officer was not having any material information to form "a reason to believe" that there was an escapement of income. The ld Counsel further submitted that cash deposit in the bank account is not an income ... Mahavir Parsad v ITO- ITA N0.924/Del/2015 dated 09.10.2017.The ld Counsel also stated that Assessing Officer was not having sufficient material to form the "reason to believe" at the time of re-opening of the assessment, therefore, reopening of assessment may be quashed. 10. On merit, ld Counsel submitted that assessee