← All Phrases

“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

Emvee Shah Real Estates Private Limited (Formerly Known As Emvee Shah Holdings Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle- 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals being ITAs no

ITA 805/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 250

crores received- by the assessee was a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax and accordingly reopening the case of the assessee dehors "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, renders the reassessment proceedings bad in law and liable to be quashed

Pratibha Mahendra Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle- 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals being ITAs no

ITA 804/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 250

crores received- by the assessee was a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax and accordingly reopening the case of the assessee dehors "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, renders the reassessment proceedings bad in law and liable to be quashed

Shirin Mahendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals being ITAs no

ITA 803/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 250

crores received- by the assessee was a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax and accordingly reopening the case of the assessee dehors "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, renders the reassessment proceedings bad in law and liable to be quashed

Mahendra Corporation, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals being ITAs no

ITA 802/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 250

crores received- by the assessee was a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax and accordingly reopening the case of the assessee dehors "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, renders the reassessment proceedings bad in law and liable to be quashed

Prashant Chandra Sadh, Mumbai vs. ITO International Tax-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 619/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprashant Chandrasadh, Ito,(Intltax),C4(2)(1), C-1804, Oberoi Woods, Room.No.1708, बनाम/ Off Western Express Air India Building, Vs. Highway,Goregaon East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400063. Mumba-400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Biips5544N (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Soumendu Kumar Dash.DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 68

sale consideration. Since the said information was not disclosed and the return of income was not filed by the assessee. The A.O has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and also reasons recorded for re-opening

ACIT Circle-11(2), New Delhi vs. Humboldt Wedag India Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/DEL/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

assessee has booked bogus expense amounting to Rs.69,08,000/- from entry operator companies run by Sri Praveen Agarwal. Therefore, I have reason to believe that assessee has escaped assessment of income of Rs.69,08,000/-. Hence notice under Section 148 is issued.” 11. To begin with

Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1299/DEL/2020[206-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

assessee has booked bogus expense amounting to Rs.69,08,000/- from entry operator companies run by Sri Praveen Agarwal. Therefore, I have reason to believe that assessee has escaped assessment of income of Rs.69,08,000/-. Hence notice under Section 148 is issued.” 11. To begin with

Shri Bhavesh Bhuva, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No. 2(i) of the appeal is allowed

ITA 235/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.235/Srt/2022 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Bhavesh Bhuva Income Tax Officer, C-51, Khodiyar Nagar Ward-3(3)(1), Surat, Income Vs Society, Nr. Chikoo Tax Office, Aaykar Bhavan, Wadi, Nana Varachha, Anavil Business Centre, Surat-395006 Hazira Road, Adajan, Pan No: Antpb 8989 P Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 29.05.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 10.06.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- Bhavesh Bhuva “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Grossly Erred In Passing The Impugned Appellate Order On An Ex-Parte Basis, By Erroneously Holding That The Appellant Is Not Interested In Pursuing The Appeal, When The Fact Is That The Appellant Has Made Detailed Submissions In Form No.35 Itself, Which Ought To Have Been Considered By The Learned Cit(A), Nfac While Passing The Impugned Order. Therefore, The Appellate Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Being Passed On An Ex-Parte Basis, Needs To Be Quashed As Being Erroneous, Illegal & Bad-In-Law.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

responded to such notice. The Assessing Officer on the basis information received in ITS data formed his opinion that he has reason to believe that the income of assessee has escaped assessment to the extent the said deposit within meaning of section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer after

M/S.U.S.Roofs Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1960/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer shall,— (i) where he has reason to believe that any claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible, serve on the assessee a notice specifying particulars

Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax 15(3)2, (OSD), Mumbai vs. M/S.U.S.Roofs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1196/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer shall,— (i) where he has reason to believe that any claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible, serve on the assessee a notice specifying particulars

Dy, CIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Epc Offshore Subsea Projects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3834/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Biswanath DasFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

income for AY 2009-10 which were necessary to frame correct assessment. 6 In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that the assessee's income of more than Rs. 1 lakh has escaped assessment for the AY. 2009-10 within the meaning of section

Stratejic Manufactures India LLP, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 38(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1942/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151

mind by the Assessing Officer the learned AR also contended that thereafter the Assessing Officer, without assigning any findings or basis to the reason to believe, directly jumped to the 2 conclusion that the assessee has concealed particulars of mentioned financial transactions pertaining to AY 2010-11 this again shows ... Officer. 7. Further, the AO in last para, without applying mind to the information received from the Investigation Wing states/writes that he has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. The text and words used by the A in the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment clearly show

Smt. Prabha Khandelwal L/H of Late Omprakash Khandelwal, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

ITA 55/RPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 55/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Late Omprakash Khandelwal (Through Legal Heir:Smt.Prabha Khandelwal) B-107, Surya Residency, Opposite M.J. College Kohka Road, Bhilai(C.G.)-490023 Pan: Anspk3247N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S.R.Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

initiating proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Before proceeding any further, I deem it fit to cull out the “reasons to believe” on the basis of which proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee, which reads as under (Page ... which is chargeable to tax. Since, the assessee from his part did not show/disclose the income to the department, I have reason to believe that the income of Rs.10280685/- (deposit in saving bank a/c) is left for assessment for AY 2010-11. Issue notice u/s. 148 for reassessment

Keshnath Sahu, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

ITA 135/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.135/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Keshnath Sahu Shri Balaji Construction Company, Near Power House, Kathuriya Complex, Ratnabandha Road, Dhamtari (C.G)-493 773 Pan : Cqips0706B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 69

case and in law, initiation of reassessment and invocation of Sec.147 is illegal, ab initio void inasmuch as there was no “reason to believe” that there was escapement of income. The initiation of reassessment and consequent reassessment order passed is illegal, unsustainable, ab initio void.” 3 Keshnath Sahu ... chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Carrying his contention further, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that a bare perusal of the “reasons to believe” recorded in the case of the assessee, which formed the very basis for initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, revealed, that the same

Shri Praful Khetshibhai Solanki, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (2) (5), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 356/RJT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 69A

information that assessee had purchased cheques/drafts of Rs. 1 lakh from M/s. Panchnath Enterprise in lieu of cash and thus there was reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh had escaped assessment. Subsequent finding after enquiry that actual amount escaping assessment was of lesser amount

M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas & Co., Surat vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 185/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 69C

Court of Delhi in the case of Signature Hotel vs ITO (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del) and submitted that the AO must have “reason to believe” that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and it is mandatory for the AO that the “reason to believe” are required

Arif Noormohammed Basathia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-31(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 852/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sarif Noor Mohammed Ito-31(1)(2), Basathia,Gala No.198, Pratyakhakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Ghaswala Compound, Bkc, Bandra East, Vs. Oshiwara, Jogeshwari, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400102. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aevpb4123N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Ms.Neelam Jadhav.Ar अपीलाथी ओर से / Appellant By : Mr.Anil Gupta.Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By :

For Appellant: Mr.Anil Gupta.DR
Section 250

engaged in obtaining the accommodation entries/ bogus purchase bills of Rs.26,38,295/- from the dealers and is a beneficiary. The AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, notice

Fab Trade Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 564/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sfab Trade Pvt.Ltd., Ito-15(1)(2), 610, Thacker Tower Room No.15B, बनाम/ Chs, Plot No.86, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Sector-17, Vashi, Mahrishi Karve Road, Navi Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcf1786A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी ओर से / Appellant By : None Ms.Vranda U Matkari.Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By :

For Appellant: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

received information from Sales tax department that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills/accommodation entries of Rs.56,26,761/-. Therefore, the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and the assessee has filed a letter to treat

Ashok Kumar, Sikar vs. ITO Ward 1, Sikar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 108/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

this case has followed due procedure prescribed under the law to reopen the case for the year under consideration, after having the reason to believe that the income in this case has escaped assessment and considered it to be a case fit for applying the provisions of section 147/148

Ashok Kumar, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward 1, Sikar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 107/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

this case has followed due procedure prescribed under the law to reopen the case for the year under consideration, after having the reason to believe that the income in this case has escaped assessment and considered it to be a case fit for applying the provisions of section 147/148