“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

Naveen Singh, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.413/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Naveen Singh………...…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M-9 Old, Adityapur Jamshedpur, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Adkps4229A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. S. Paul, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017–18 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹43,99,340/- Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Accepting The Income As Declared. Subsequently, The Ao Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act After Recording Reasons & Obtaining Sanction From The Competent Authority. The Assessee Did Not Respond To The Notice Under Section 148. Thereafter, Multiple Notices Under Section 142(1) Were Issued, Including Final Opportunity Notices, Which Were Duly Served But Remained Unanswered.

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

correctness of stamp duty valuation. Such reopening amounts to borrowed satisfaction, which is impermissible in law. From the reference made to the reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO and the observations noted in the assessment order as extracted above, we note that in the instant case, the justification ... statute requires that two ingredients are to be satisfied for assuming jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act. There should be prima facie "reason to believe" and there must be evidence that "Income has escaped assessment". The failure to satisfy or fulfil these conditions simultaneously would vitiate the entire proceeding

Shah Mahendrakumar Mafatlal (HUF), Mithkhali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1689/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1688 & 1689/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16) बनाम/ Shah Mahendrakumar Income Tax Officer Mafatlal Huf Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. 27D, Maharashtra Society, Ahmedabad Anmol Mithkhali Owners Asso Mithkhali, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaihs8263H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Sulabh Padshah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. Dr 16/12/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 06/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

fictitious loan (Entry operator beneficiaries) of Jignesh Shah Dissemination amounting to Rs. 4741600/- during the year under consideration. 3. Basis of forming reasons to believe and details of escapement of income: On perusal of the details and information, it is very clear that the assesse assessee had made transaction ... operator beneficiaries) of Jignesh Shah Dissemination amounting to Rs. 4741600/- during the year under consideration. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income of Rs. 4741600/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Therefore it is a fit case

Shah Mahendrakumar Mafatlal (HUF), Mithkhali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1688/AHD/2025[ 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

Income Tax Officer, Dhule vs. Santosh Jaynarayan Sharma, Dhule

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed whereas the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2324/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2324/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay DhivareFor Respondent: Shri Chinmayy Suhas

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69

learned CIT(A) erred in holding that additions made on issues other than the one forming part of the "reasons to believe" for reopening were outside the scope of section 147, without appreciating that Explanation 3 to section 147, as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, expressly empowers ... declaring income of ₹20,31,900. Ld. Assessing Officer based on the information about explained cash credit/investment amounting to ₹45,76,025 had reason to believe that income to this extent has escaped assessment and has issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 26.07.2022 after taking approval from the Principal

Shah Petroleum Products, Chembur vs. ACIT, Circle 27(3), Mumbai, Vashi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4905/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2012-13 Shah Petroleum Products, Acit, Circle 27(3), Bpcl Petrol Pump, Opp. Room No. 423, 4Th Floor, Shoppers Stop, Ghatkopar Vs. Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Mahul Road, Chembur, Mumbai, Station Commercial Mumbai – 400089. Complex, Vashi, Pan – Aabfs2738Q Navi Mumbai – 400703. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In This Case, The Ao Had Received The Information Dated 19.03.2019 From The Ddit (Inv.) Unit – 5(4), Mumbai To The Effect That In A Survey Action Under Section 132 Of The Act Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. Evergreen Enterprise, Statement Of Mr. Nilesh Bharani, Being Partner Of Such Enterprises Recorded Under Section 132 (4) Of The Act, Wherefrom Undisclosed Activity Of Money 2 Shah Petroleum Products

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, SR. D.R

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250

with the AO coupled with the fact that no scrutiny assessment was completed for the A.Y. 2012-13", the Assessing Officer formed the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax as indicated above to the tune of Rs.3,25,00,000/- had escaped assessment within the meaning of section

Jigna Ashutosh Bhatt, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 33(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on merits

ITA 3639/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarito Ward-32(2)(1) Jigna Ashutosh Bhatt Kautilya Bhavan, I-1434, Govardhan Nagar Bandra Kurla Bldg. No. 4, Opp. Poinsur Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Gymkhana, Kandivali Mumbai-400 051 (West), Mumbai-400 067 Pan/Gir No. Aiypb4411G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan L. Vajani, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.01.2026

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Investigation Wing. The CIT(A) observed that at the stage of reopening, the Assessing Officer was only required to form a prima facie “reason to believe” and sufficiency of such reasons could not be examined. Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act were upheld

Bharti Airtel Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, TDS, Ward-1(1), International Taxation, New Del;Hi

In the result, ground of appeal no

ITA 4580/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.4580/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2009-10) Bharti Airtel Ltd., Bharti Crescent, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase Ii, New Delhi 110070 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaacb-2894-G बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Ward 1(1), International Taxation, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 201(1)

furnished by Holstein to the assessee was in the year 2009. The assessee cannot and by no means in 2008 could have reason to believe much less bonafide reason about the tax residency status of Holstein as Swedish. Thus, the plea of the assessee that the TDS provisions of section ... payment in August 2008 any documentary evidence was furnished by Holstein to substantiate its Tax Residence status in Sweden. The assessee had no reason to believe that Holstein was tax resident of Sweden within the meaning of Article 4 of India-Sweden DTAA. Therefore, we find no merit in ground

George Molakal Mathew, Pune vs. ITO International Tax Ward-3, Pune

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

ITA 2236/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: or during the hearing of the Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 3

194A was made and sold immovable property of Rs.1,42,00,000/-, however no return was furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, there was reason to believe that the above financial transaction has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 3 147 of the IT Act. Accordingly, the case was reopened

Adhi Kumara Guru, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-22(1), Chennai

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

ITA 120/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaमाननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम"

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, Advocate for Mr.G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

paragraph 5, as well as the basis for forming the “reasons to in paragraph 5, as well as the basis for forming the “reasons to believe” in paragraph 6 thereof, are reproduced hereunder h 6 thereof, are reproduced hereunder h 6 thereof, are reproduced hereunder: 4. Enquiries made ... evidence, whatsoever, is furnished to substantiate the said o evidence, whatsoever, is furnished to substantiate the said improvement. 6. Basis of forming reasons to believe and details of escapement of Basis of forming reasons to believe and details of escapement of Basis of forming reasons to believe and details

Vikas Motiram Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(5), Mumbai

ITA 4741/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 148Section 250Section 69A

cash or unaccounted transactions executed during the year under consideration was of Rs. 3,92,00,000/-. 3. Therefore, the AO has a reason to believe that income of Rs.3,92,00,000/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 within the meaning of clause

DCIT, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 4047/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

above via cheque through accounted funds to the assessee, established a clear nexus between these cash loans and the assessee, thereby resulting in reasons to believe that cash loan transactions recorded under the above mentioned ledger accounts represent cash transactions executed by the Radius Group with the assessee ... Bombay High Court: “ (i) Respondent No. 1 shall provide a legible copy of the documents relied upon for his conclusion that there were reasons to believe tax has escaped assessment including a copy of the order passed by the Settlement Commission which is referred to in the reasons to believe

DCIT, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 4046/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

Surendra Garg HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 583/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

Enterprises Ltd. 44200 1,87,66,525 4. On the basis of the aforesaid information available with the undersigned, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax, as indicated above, to the tune of Rs.1,87,66,525/- or proceedings for reassessment, has escaped assessment with the meaning

Surendra Garg HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 300/MUM/2024[2012-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-23

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

Enterprises Ltd. 44200 1,87,66,525 4, On the basis of the aforesaid information available with the undersigned, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax, as indicated above, to the tune of Rs.1,87,66,525/- or proceedings for reassessment, has escaped assessment with the meaning ... escaped assessment. In Income Tax Officer Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [291 ITR 500], the Supreme Court explained that the reasons to believe is different from conclusive proof. In Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO [236 ITR 34 (SC)], the Court observed that the adequecy or correctness

Maithan Ceramic Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

ITA 1944/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Himmatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 269S

paper book which are the copies of the reasons recorded for the reopening of the assessment. The reads as under :- 81 Reason to Believe A.Y: 2011-12 M/s. Maithan Ceramics Limited 1. The assessee was engaged in carrying on the business of Manufacturing & Dealing of Refractory Goods during the previous ... finding from the records available in this office in respect of the said assessee M/s Maithan Ceramic Ltd., I have sufficient reason to believe that the assessee company has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 within

Chintan Harshad Kanakia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

ITA 2822/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhsmt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Chintan Harshad Kanakia, Ito Ward 42 (1)(1) Room No. 103, Sacovar Apt., Sagar Complex, 703, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Saibaba Nagar, Borivali (W), Bkc, Mumbai -400051 Mumbai Pan – Agnpk6023E

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

that if after issuing notice under Section 148, the AO does not assess or re-assess such income for which he had formed reason to believe that it had ITA No. 2822 /Mum/2025 (AY 2015-16) Chintan Harshad Kanakia escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess ... after issuing notice under section 148, the AO accepts contention of 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

Ajaykumar Natwarlal Sheth, Rajkot vs. The DCIT, Circle 1(2) Rajkot, Rajkot

ITA 108/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

fictitious loss had resulted into under assessment to the tune of Rs. 18,08,568/- e. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped tax to the extent of Rs. 18,08,568/- as stated above and this escapement ... been made in my case for the year under collection under section 147 of the Act which states that assessing officer should have 'reason to believe' escapement of income. Therefore, I find that even after there is a foundation based on information is there, still there must be some reasons

Kanhaiya Lal Hari Narayan, Neem Ka Thana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Neem Ka Thana, Neem Ka Thana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 1034/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 144Section 147Section 250

scrutiny assessment U/s 143(3) of the Act was made accordingly, in this case the only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above (paragraph 05). 7. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return of income ... Income tax as per the provision of section 151 of the Act In view of the above circumstances and facts, I have reason to believe that income of Rs. 6,86,280/- has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 in terms of the provision of section

Vikas Jain, Kanpur vs. ACIT-CC 2(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 434/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Vikas Jain, Vs. The Acit, H-2/1, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur- Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur 208001 208006 Pan: Abqpj8049R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 17.05.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 27.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because There Being No Reason To Believe, Far From There Being Any Material To Form Reasons To Believe, The Proceedings Initiated Right From Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 & The Re-Assessment Framed Thereof Are All Without Jurisdiction Bad In Law, The Order Passed Be Quashed. 02. Because The So-Called Reasons Having Been Recorded Applying Explanation 2(A) To Section 147, Of The Act Which Not Being Applicable, The Very Reason To Believe Being Contrary To The Mandate Of The Section, The Proceedings- Initiated U/S 148, The Reassessment Framed Are All Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Approval Given By The Competent Authority U/S 151, Being Mechanical In Nature Without Verification Of Facts, The Notice Issued U/S 148 & The Reassessment Framed Thereafter Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156Section 48Section 50C

r.w.s. 143(3) for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 27.12.2018. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “01. Because there being no reason to believe, far from there being any material to form reasons to believe, the proceedings initiated right from issue of notice u/s. 148 and the re-assessment ... called reasons having been recorded applying Explanation 2(a) to Section 147, of the Act which not being applicable, the very reason to believe being contrary to the mandate of the section, the proceedings- initiated u/s 148, the reassessment framed are all contrary to the provisions of law, be quashed

Dharam Chand Agarwal, Kanpur (Uttar Pardesh) vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur- I

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

ITA 358/LKW/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Dharam Chand Agarwal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 14/75 D Gopal Vihar Civil Lines, Kanpur-I, U.P. Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Aanpa1942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Pr. Cit, Kanpur-1 On 31.03.2024 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Pcit Has Set Aside The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 28.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B For The A.Y. 2016-17 & Directing Him To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Dated 28.03.2022, Which Has Been Set Aside U/S 263 Of The Act By The Impugned Order Passed By Pr. Cit, Itself Was Illegal & Was Not Enforceable Due To Various Infirmities In The Initiation & Conclusion Of Re-Assessment Proceedings, The Same Could Not Have Been Subjected To Revision U/S 263 Of The Act & Consequently The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law & Wholly Without Jurisdiction. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Nfac U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & In Setting Aside The Same By Exercising His Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

reasons recorded by the AO to reopen the case was not added back in the re-assessment proceedings, because the primary reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment had failed and therefore, such re-assessment order could not be treated as a valid order ... would be invalid and bad in law, only because no addition had been made on account of the subject on which the reasons to believe were drawn up and sanction accorded. We also note that in the case of New Jagat Textiles Mills