“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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-1, Kota vs. Shri Chandi Ram, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 662/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)

prescribed form of his income for the AY 2012-13 within 30 days from the date of service of that notice. The reasons to believe recorded u/s. 148(2) of the Act which reads as under : "On perusal of the assessment records, if notices that the assessee has received interest ... total income, has escaped assessment should be chargeable to tax under section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. I, therefore, have reason to believe that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income for the above-mentioned year. Therefore, Notice under section 148 of the Income

Qualcomm Incorporated, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7559/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

CDMA 2000 lx EV DO, Wireless LAN 20 ITA Nos. 7894/Del/2017 & 7559/Del/2018 and SA Nos. 309 & 304/Del/2020 WiMax". These facts give a strong reason to believe that these officers will be in a position to impart a technically sound and objective opinion In the matter to fulfill the judicious requirement

Ratroi Maa Trading P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Wazrd-21(1), New Delhi

ITA 7489/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 140Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

u/s.148 and the consequent assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) is contrary to law in the absence of any incriminating material to form reason to believe, as per the report of Investigation Wing and AO relied on, which only directs that the AO has to examine the details and after

Qualcomm Incorporated, Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7894/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

Heena Dineshkumar Sukhanandi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-20(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1018/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Mr.Kumar Kale.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Kavita Kaushik.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 44A

rental income of Rs. 27,20,900/- and interest of Rs. 10,425/- and was not offered to Tax. Therefore the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In compliance to the notice, the assessee has filed

Keval H Seth, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 418/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar, Hon’Blekeval H. Seth V. Ito, Ward 16(2)(1), 17-D Malabar Apartment Matrumandir, Nepeansea Road Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400036 Mumbai- 400007 Pan: Afbps4180H

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

accommodation entries for speculation profit and loss and the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that, the income 3 AY 2007-08 Keval H Seth has escapement the assessment and issued notice

Ujjwal Microfinance Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 27(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3877/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

assessee. 9. A perusal of the reasons recorded, extracted hereinabove, for reopening of assessment clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that the assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entry from White Collar Management Ltd. 10. Strictly keeping in mind the reasons for reopening, assessment has been concluded ... judgment is extracted as under: “5. The condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 147 is the formation of a reason to believe by the Assessing Officer that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Upon the formation or a reason to believe, the Assessing Officer

Mesers S R Ingosts Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

In the result Revised Ground no 4 of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.04/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) M/S S R Ingots Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Cc-1, Raipur House No.16, Opp.Cg Gramin Bank, Choubey Colony, Raipur Pan No. :Aaics 5559 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Kumar Singh & Smt. Surbhi Jain, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Kumar Singh & Smt. Surbhi JainFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

assessment under section 153A/ 153C of the Act. 4. That the Ld. AO erred in the very invocation of section 148 as the reason to believe suffered from factually incorrect/ irrelevant information and borrowed satisfaction while failing the basic test as laid down in several judicial precedence. 5. That ... assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Revised Ground no. 4 : That the Ld. AO erred in the very invocation of section 148 as the reason to believe suffered from factually incorrect/ irrelevant information and borrowed satisfaction while failing the basic test as laid down in several judicial precedence

Boston Scientific International Bv the Netherlands, Netherland vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay petition of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 789/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshboston Scientific International Vs. Acit, Bv The Netherlands, Circle-1(1)(2), 100A, The Capital Court Oiof International Taxation, Palm Marg Munirka, Delhi- New Delhi 110067 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb4238J Sa No. 152/Del/2023 (In Ita No. 789/Del/2023) (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Boston Scientific International Vs. Acit, Bv The Netherlands, Circle-1(1)(2), 100A, The Capital Court Oiof International Taxation, Palm Marg Munirka, Delhi- New Delhi 110067 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb4238J

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 40

expense while computing the taxable income for that year. 5. Section 147 of the I.T. Act, provides that 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 ... assess or reassess such income. 6. In the light of the above provisions and the facts of the present case, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the present case within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act. Further, considering

Shri Jaspreert Singh S/O Shri Surjit Singh, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 58/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.58/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13

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

since conditions for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act were lacking, in as much as, neither the reason to believe provide requisite nexus for the belief that income has escaped assessment nor there was any application of mind before assumption of jurisdiction. It may kindly be held that

Mafatlal Harakchandji Bothra, Mumbai vs. I.T.O.-19(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1002/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemaftlal Harkchandji Ito – 19(2)(3) Bothrac/O. D.C 2Nd Floor, बनाम/ Bothra & Co. Llp (Cp) Matru Mandir, Vs. (Formerly Known As Tardeo Road, D.C Bothra & Co), Mumbai-400007. 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aggpb3538C (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr. Rajkumar Singh.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

obtained accommodation entries of non- genuine purchases from three parties aggregating to Rs.22,23,456/- and is a beneficiary. The AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire. In compliance to notice

Veena Devi, Muzaffarpur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/PAT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 41/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Veena Devi Pr. Cit, Patna-1 Vs Krishnapuri, Nh 28 Bhagwanpur Chowk Muzaffarpur - 842001 [Pan: Aoyps8291P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Maskara, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna-1, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 23/03/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Eighteen (18) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Ld Pcit, Patna Is Wrong, Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Maskara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

were to come to the conclusion that any income chargeable to tax which, according to his "reason to believe", had escaped assessment for any assessment year, did not escape assessment, then, the mere fact that the AO entertained a reason to believe, albeit even a genuine reason to believe, would

DCIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors P Ltd., As Representative Assessee of M/S. Mausmi Ventures Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.88/मुं/ 2023 से 90/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12 से 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 148Section 163Section 163(1)

received by the Assessing Officer in response to the show cause notice issued u/s.163 of the Act, the Assessing Officer had no reason to believe that the assessee is aggrieved against treating it as representative assessee of MVL. 5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have

DCIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors P Ltd., As Representative Assessee of M/S. Mausmi Ventures Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 89/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.88/मुं/ 2023 से 90/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12 से 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 148Section 163Section 163(1)

DCIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors P Ltd As Representative Assessee of M/S. Mausmi Ventures Ltd.), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 88/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.88/मुं/ 2023 से 90/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12 से 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 148Section 163Section 163(1)

Maxtech Realty Pvt. Ltd(Formerly Known As Nandivardhan Construction Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-2, Thane

ITA 690/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153(3)Section 153ASection 250

mentioned here that section 147 authorizes 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. At this stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material ... vitiate the reassessment proceedings and issue of the subsequent to receipt of hitherto unknown facts do form as basis of having reasons to believe 13 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited and therefore, validity of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act in the light of the facts

ITO, Ward-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bansal Separators and Spares Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3173/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleito – Ward – 14(1)(1) V. M/S. Bansal Separators & Spares Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 431, 4Th Floor 6, Laxminarayan Shopping Centre Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sion Trombay Road, Chembur Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400071 Pan: Aabcb8468M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

party who gave the loan amount. It is submitted that general and vague statement made by a third party cannot provide reason to believe that chargeable income has escaped assessment in the hand of the assessee. Appellant requested to withdraw addition on account of non- genuine unsecured loan in view

Ken Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 4, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 894/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanvk-Vk-La- 894@Eaqcbz@2021 ¼Fu-Oa- 2010&11½ Ken Financial Services Ltd. 101, Shah Arcade, A Wing, Shah Archade Sra Chs Ltd Rani Sati Marg, Malad (E) Mumbai-400 097 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaack4929K Cuke Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Byomakesh P. K. Panda, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

that the total accommodation entries taken by the assessee amounting to Rs.1,06,50,000/- are not quantified, genuine and accordingly I have reason to believe that at least the income of Rs.1,06,50,000/- has escaped assessment for AY 2010-11 within the meaning of section

Mr Gajanan Parshuram Khismatrao, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Kalyan

ITA 817/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranav PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

observed as under: “16. 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 that an income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the Gajanan Parshuram Khismatrao ITA no.817/Mum./2020 Assessing Officer should have finally

M/S. Sfs Infinite Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed ex-parte

ITA 806/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 68

holder of entry S.J. Capital Ltd. giving account Bank of entry given bank SBP Account no. entry giving account 50097 I have therefore reason to believe that an amount of Rs.2,15,220/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section ... innocuous information without reference to any material or content of information to support the so called information. Needless to say, holding of ‘reason to believe’ must be reflected and supported by reasons recorded in writing. This is totally absent here. To reiterate, no substantive material or any content has been