“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

Aman Exports International, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 147/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Tatiwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) &

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

where it has been held that the apparent must be considered as real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that apparent is not real. In this case there is no material brought on record by appellant to show that genuineness of transaction and source of share ... along with copy of approval of competent authority and copy of all the documents, reports and statements etc relied upon to form the reason to believe. That apart from the copy of reasons recorded, no other documents was ever provided, in spite of the fact that the assessee also filled

Sky Gem, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 787/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

enquiries made by the Directorate, it is evident that the assessee has taken accommodation entries from the Bhanwarlal Jain group. Hence, I have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2010-11 in the case of the assessee within the meaning of section 147 of the Income ... tangible material before recording reasons. Further, the reasons recorded must demonstrate a link between the tangible material and the formation of the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has while examining the case of re-opening assessment in a case where assessment

Falguni Samir Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1310/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Falguni Samir Mehta, Acit-19(1), 303, Mansarovar, Mount Pleasant Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400006. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007. Pan No. Abeps 6347 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Gosalia / Isha ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Prakash D Choughule, Sr DR

Section 148Section 69C

this information to the Assessing to the Assessing Officer and thus, the Assessing Officer the Assessing Officer accordingly recorded the gly recorded the reasons to believe that income that income of assessee to the extent of Rs. of assessee to the extent of Rs. 37,20,900/-( = Rs.17 ... this regard, the ld. DR filed a copy of reasons recorded along with copy of reasons recorded along with proforma of reasons of reasons to believe approved by the appropriate a the appropriate authority u/s 151 of the Act uthority u/s 151 of the Act. A copy of such proforma

Anil Kumar Kansal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO), Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1358/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Anil Kumar Kansal, Vs Ito, C/O-Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Ward-1(1), 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh-201002. Pan-Adipk0246R Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.08.2023

Section 148

being heard was not given to the appellant and there is no valid service of notice u/s 148. According to the appellant reason to believe have not been supplied to the appellant thus according to him the proceedings u/s 148 are not valid. 5.2.1.Examination of facts reveals that the appellant

Showtime Events India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4239/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Raghvendra Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there has been an escapement of income chargeable to tax. Merely having a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, is not sufficient to reopen assessments beyond the four year period indicated above. The escapement of income from assessment

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

serve on the assessee a notice specifying particulars of claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief and require him, where he has reason to believe that any claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible'. A careful perusal of these provisions unveils that

Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra, Padampua vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1, Kailash Heights

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 424/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani (C.A)&For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 24Section 253(3)

while forming the belief, again the Assessing Officer has stated that the assessee has not filed return of income and therefore, he has reason to believe that the income of Rs. 15,20,500/- to be deposited in the bank. account chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment. This statement ... section 32 Rs.1,89,824 3.8. The condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 147 is the formation of a reason to believe by the Assessing Officer. Upon the formation of the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the AO is empowered

Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 784/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Citicorp Trustee Company बिधम/ Dcit (International Ltd. As Trustee For Fccb Taxation)-2(1)(1) Vs. Issued By Jindal Saw Ltd. 17Th Floor, 1713, Air India Citigroup Centre, Canada Building, Nariman Point, Square, Canary Wharf Mumbai-400021. London E14 5Lb United Kingdom. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc0452D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anish Thackar/Nikhil Tiwari/Lekh Mehta Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Dated 19.01.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice The Ground No. 2 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Without Satisfying The Essential Condition Prescribed Under The Act; & Therefore Contends That The Action Of The Ao Is Ab-Initio-Void. 3. In Order To Examine The Legal Issue Raised By The Assessee, It Is Necessary To Look Into The Reasons Recorded By Ao To Reopen The Assessment Which Is Reproduced As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thackar/NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)Section 6

provision of IT Act. 3. In view of the above facts of the case and reasons described above, I have reason to believe income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.42,84,48,114/- has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly ... year, failed to file return of income despite having taxable income, opinioned that 4 A.Y. 2014-15 Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd. he has “reason to believe” income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.42,84,48,114/- has escaped assessment. 5. The assessee pursuant to receiving the “reasons recorded” (supra

M/S. Jet Speed Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 32 (1), Mumbai

ITA 63/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

interest was shown in the books of accounts to give the unsecured loan a colour of genuineness. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax above Rs.l Lakh has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2011-12 in the case of the said assessee within the meaning ... said materials. The CIT(A) further held that the Assessing Officer at the time of issue of notice under section 148 had a reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and it is not the requirement that at the time of issue of notice the Assessing Officer should

Jet Speed Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 32(1), Mumbai

ITA 24/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Jet Speed Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 32 (1), Mumbai

ITA 23/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Shri Kalu Lal Soi, Chittorgarh vs. ITO, Ward-1, Chittorgrh

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

ITA 91/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotekalu Lal Soni, Vs. Ito, Ward – 1, Sonion Ka Mohalla, Chittor Garh, Village & Post Rajasthan. Nikumbh, Chittor Garh-312603, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Amops4148P Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit – Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec147 & U/Sec 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Prerana choudhary

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

found that there is a Shri Kulu Lal soni. Chittorgarh information relating to the assessee was found. The AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The AO dealt on the facts and the provisions

Mp Ferrous and Non Ferrous India Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Cir-7(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1249/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwant Gupta a/wFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

Bhoomidev Credit 14,00,000 Corporation Ltd. (BCCL) The information received has been analysed. In view of the above, he reason to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment to the extent of Rs.14,00,000/- in the aforesaid case and it is a fit case ... assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entries from the aforesaid party. The AO based on the said information formed the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and it is a fit case for reopening in terms of the provision of section

Mp Ferrous and Non Ferrous India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-7(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1248/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwant Gupta a/wFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

Devender Mavi, Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1903/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 68

Submission is not made by the Assessee. The Assesses had not deposited cash of Rs 22.50 Lac during AY 2009- 10 The Reason to believe is incorrect. The reassessment proceedings were initiated against the appellant assessee by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act by recording reason that

Devender Mavi, Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1902/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 68

Devender Mavi, Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1901/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 68

Devender Mavi, Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1900/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 68

Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 699/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 234B

resulting in net reduction in income of Rs. 18,02,920/- through Client Code Modification. In view of above, I have reason to believe that the income of Rs. 18,02,920/-has escaped assessment on the reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully ... shifting of profits. The reasons recorded are thus clearly vague and non- descript and hence such reasons cannot be construed to hold ‘reason to believe’ towards escapement of chargeable income as contemplated in Section 147 of the Act. Consequently, the condition of main provisions of erstwhile Section

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1051/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Refer Annexure 7- was relied upon by the assessee in written submissions besides the decisions in other cases. There is no reason to believe that the AO did not consider and follow all these referred cases while passing assessment order, especially when this was the issues covered under CAS assessment