“reason to believe”

Sh. Farukh Jehan Zeb, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Anant Nag

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

observed as under: “Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification ... Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe 13 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO that an income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer should have finally

Prabodh Sadashiv Sadavartem(HUF), Nagpur vs. I.T.O.(TDS) Ward -1(4), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

records had invoked the provisions of section 147 of the I. T. Act to bring to tax the income which, the AO had reason to believe, had escaped the assessment by way of wrong claim u/s.54B of the Act. Thus the ld. AO having formed such belief had issued

Shri Prabodh Sadashiv Sadavarte (HUF), Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

records had invoked the provisions of section 147 of the I. T. Act to bring to tax the income which, the AO had reason to believe, had escaped the assessment by way of wrong claim u/s.54B of the Act. Thus the ld. AO having formed such belief had issued

Chhattisgarh State Beverage Corporation Ltd., Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 198/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Limited Aabkari Bhavan, Chokra Nala, Labhandi, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc3163B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

assessee company was reopened by the A.O vide notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 10.10.2017 on the basis of the following “reasons to believe”, Page 33 of APB : “Subject: Providing of reason for reopening the case/issuing notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2013-14-reg ... merely an application of income and, thus, it could not be allowed as business expenditure under section 37(1). Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income to the tune of Rs. 40,00,00,000/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2013-14 within

Awanish Pandey, Ambikapur, Surguja vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.128/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

ground/s of appeal.” 2. The case of the assessee was reopened by the A.O u/s.147 of the Act based on the following “reasons to believe”- “Reasons for the belief that the income has escaped assessment The assessee did not file the return for the relevant assessment year ... filing return income for the said assessment year. However, the assessee has not filed the same. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the income in the said case, has escaped the assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 amounting to Rs.13,45,021/- under section

Santosh Pandey, Ambikapur, Surguja vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.127/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

ground/s of appeal.” 2. The case of the assessee was reopened by the A.O u/s.147 of the Act on the basis of following “reasons to believe”- “Reasons recorded u/s.147 read with section 142(2), issue of notice U/s.148 of I.T Act, 1961 The assessee did not file the return ... filing return income for the said assessment year. However, the assessee has not filed the same. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the income in the said case, has escaped the assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 amounting to Rs.43,00,000/- under section

Smt. Pushpa Chhajer, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

raised the question whether the apparent could be considered as real. Apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find ... raised the question whether the apparent could be considered as real Apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

initiated to verify the source of Investment made in purchase of house. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the AO merely wanted to know the details of sources of funds invested by the assessee ... that: “Where the reasons recorded reflect that the matter requires detailed investigation and further verification, the AO has reason to suspect and not reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO is invalid and as such, the impugned

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

initiated to verify the source of Investment made in purchase of house. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the AO merely wanted to know the details of sources of funds invested by the assessee ... that: “Where the reasons recorded reflect that the matter requires detailed investigation and further verification, the AO has reason to suspect and not reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO is invalid and as such, the impugned

Jayton Trading Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.65/Rpr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Jayton Trading Private Limited, Vs Dcit (Central)-2, Raipur 15, Crooked Lane, 1St Floor, Hare Street, Kolkata Pan No. :Aaacj 6659 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate, Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31 /07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Bhopal, Dated 06.07.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Dated 06/07/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act Dated 30/12/2019 Are Illegal & Void Ab Initio. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Not Confirming That The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2019 Is Bad In Law. 2.1 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Not Holding That The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2019 Is Time Barred By Limitation In View Of First Proviso To Section 147 Of The Act. 2.2 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Confirming The Reason Recorded U/S 148(2) Of The Act Though The Same Is Only A Change Of Opinion On Account Of Borrowed Satisfaction Without Application Of Mind By The Assessing Officer.

reasons recorded u/s 148 by the Ld AO were constructed on the foundation of misrepresentation of the actual fact, in absence of any reason to believe that the income escaped assessment, this also is a strong reason for which the notice issued and proceedings initiated u/s 148 are liable ... submission of the ld. AR of the assessee, ld. CIT-DR submitted that the approval granted by the ld. Pr.CIT on the reason to believe drafted by the ITO, Ward-6(3), Kolkata, was very much according to the procedures laid down in the Act, proper note was also prepared

Shri Sukhev Singh, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Bathinda

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

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Shrimati Amarjit Kaur W/O Bugar Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Mansa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

from record of this office, it is noticed that the assessee has not filed his ITR for AY 2009- 10. I have therefore reasons to believe that the income of Rs. 2,930,000/- chargeable to tax for the AY 2009-10 and any other income which may come ... from record of this office, it is noticed that the assessee has not filed his ITR for AY 2009-10. I have therefore reasons to believe that the income of Rs. 2,930,000/- chargeable to tax for the AY 2009-10 and any other income which may come