“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

Sunshine Merchants P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1539/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sunshine Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-4(1), 601, Sunshine Plaza, Niagaum Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Cross Road, Dadar East, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400014. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aagca 1771 R Appellant Respondent : Assessee By None : Revenue By Mr. Ashish Heliwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by None

Section 143(3)

material and any direct link between the tangible material and any direct link between the tangible material and formation of formation of the reason to believe that the income of the reason to believe that the income of appellant had escaped assessment as is clear from the appellant had escaped ... reopen can be from assessment, the power to reopen can be from assessment, the power to reopen can be exercised. The expression reason to believe in Section exercised. The expression reason to believe in Section exercised. The expression reason to believe in Section 147 has been construed in the judgment

Vipinlumar Sanklecha, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16 (3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6612/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6612/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Vipinkumar Sanklecha बिधम/ Ito, Ward-16(3)(5) Room No. 447, 4Th Floor, A/303, Bhattad Tower, Opp. Vs. Kora Kendra Ground, R. M. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bhattad Road, Borivali (W), Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aayps5062N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ajay Singh Revenue By: Shri Mahender Ahuja सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-07, Mumbai Dated 02.08.2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Which Are The Legal Issues Raised By The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment Without Satisfying The Condition Precedents As Laid Down U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) As Well As For Not Following The Hon’Ble Supreme Court As Well The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court Decision Cited By Him. The Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3.1 Reads As Under: - “1. The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Reopening Of Assessment Without Appreciating That The Reopening Of The Assessment Is Bad In Law, Invalid & Liable To Be Quashed In As Much As:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Mahender Ahuja

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

much as: 2 A.Y. 2011-12 Vipinkumar Sankelecha a) Reasons recorded for reopening of assessment are reason to suspect and not reason to believe. b) Reopening is upon direction of third party and therefore borrowed reason. 2. The reassessment order passed by the AO is in violation of the guidelines ... Vipinkumar Sankelecha is per-se incorrect. According to the Ld. AR, the condition precedent for reopening the assessment is “reason to believe escapement of Income”. However, according to the Ld. AR, the factual basis itself was wrong which is discernable from the reason recorded which is found placed at page

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nsl Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 22/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 22/Hyd/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Nsl Properties Private Income Tax, Vs. Limited, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Aaccn7387G] (अपीलधर्थी / Appellant) (प्रत् यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

from 1-4-1989], they are given a go-by and only one condition has remained, viz., that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Therefore, post 1-4-1989 , power to reopen is much wider. However ... needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also

Crown Chemicals Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7876/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. It is to state that there is reason to believe that the apparent is not real then taxing authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter

General Electric Company, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 82/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

facts and circumstances of the case CIT(A) erred in holding that the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and was justified in re-opening of such assessment. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case CIT(A) erred in not appreciating ... business connection is taxable in India. 21. On the basis of material collected during or after survey operations and discussed above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for AY 2001-02. This belief is formed on the basis of fact that assessee

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. General Electric Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 432/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

Babita Devi Kanoria, Raniganj vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 54/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria,..............................Appellant W/O. Unesh Kr. Kajoria, Jagannath Garden, Nsb Road, P.O. Raniganj-713347, Burdwan, West Bengal [Pan: Anfpk0759G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(1), Asansol, Income Tax Department, Parmar Building, 54, G.T. Road, Upper Chelidanga, P.O. Asansol-713305, Paschim Burdwan (Wb) Appearances By: Shri Aayush Gupta, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 15, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2022 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol Dated 18.11.2019 Passed For A.Y. 2010-11. 1 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria, Raniganj 2. The Assessee Has Taken Three Grounds Of Appeal, But Her Grievances Revolve Around A Single Issue, Namely Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.3,09,766/-, Which Was Imposed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C).

Section 133(6)Section 14Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

their regular books of accounts as commodity loss which is subsequently adjusted with business income. After considering the above mentioned facts, I have reason to believe that the assessee misused the NMCE platform to escape income atleast to the tune of Rs. 464800/-. Accordingly, 1 have reason to believe that

Deepak Srichand Bathija, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2600/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deepak Srichand Bathija बिधम/ Nfac, Delhi 5-B, Elegant Apartment, 3, Room No. 356 C.R. Vs. Sobhani Road, Cuffe Building, New Delhi- Parade, Mumbai-400005. 110002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapb6001A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Shri Vaibhav Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 25.08.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Filed Eleven (11) Grounds, However, At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 1 Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Reopening Of The Assessment Made By The Ao U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Without Satisfying The Condition Precedents U/S 147 Of The Act. Since It Is A Legal Issue We Would Like To Adjudicate The Same First.

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Jain

Section 147Section 148

intends to re-open the assessment, then AO has to record the reason to reopen the assessment, wherein he should record the “reason to believe, escapement of income”. It is settled principle of law that “reason to believe” postulates a foundation based on information and belief based on reason. After ... escaped assessment. In other words, before the AO issues notice u/s 148 of the Act, he must have recorded the reason to believe escapement of income. It is no doubt true that this Tribunal cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion

Manohar Manak Alloys P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1159/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

provisions of sub-section (2). Sub-section (2) of section 143 provides that on furnishing of the return, if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible, he can serve notice on the assessee specifying ... section 143(3) of the Act. In other words, on the filing of the return under section 139, if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an in-appropriate claim has been made by the assessee in the return, before sending the intimation under section

Saytidevi Kantilal Bhandari, Mumbai vs. The ITO - Ward- 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1734/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1734/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Saytidevi Kantilal Bhandari बिधम/ Ito, Ward-19(3)(2) Room No. 224, 2Nd Floor, 162, Tp Street, 6 Vs. Kumbharwada, Mumbai- Matru Mandir, Tardeo 400004. Road, Mumbai-400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aghpb9079K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah & Rajesh Chamaria Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-30, Mumbai Dated 16.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. At The Outset, The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Grounds Of Appeal Wherein He Has Raised The Legal Issue Regarding Validity Of Reopening Of Assessment By Ao U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah & RajeshFor Respondent: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148

fact that since the accommodation entries are provided to account for a transaction that does not exist in reality, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- or any other income chargeable to tax which comes to my notice subsequently ... before AO validily re-open an assessment. The essential condition for reopening a completed assessment is the requirement of AO to record his “reason to believe, escapement of income”. It is settled that “Reasons to believe” postulates foundation based on information and belief based on reason. Even if there

M/S Sakaar Commercial (P) Ltd., Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward-13(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2184/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 137Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

escaped assessment. The Ld. A.R therefore submitted that these are only surmises and presumption on the part of the income and nowhere reason to believe has been recorded qua escaped income. The Ld. 3 I.T.A. No. 2184/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Sakaar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. A.R. submitted that ... information received. Such an information from Investigation Wing may give the Assessing Officer the reasons to suspect, but the same does not constitute reasons to believe, until and unless the Assessing Officer satisfies himself about veracity of the information received from the Investigation Wing so as to form the belief

M. Vijayakumar(Rep by His Wife S. Yasodha), Erode vs. ITO, Intnl Taxaton Ward, Coimbatore

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

ITA 689/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 689/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri M. Vijayakumar, The Income Tax Officer, Rep. By His Wife Smt. S.Yasodha, Vs. International Taxation 26, Kuttakkattuvalasu, Elumathur, Ward, Erode – 638 104. Coimbatore. Pan : Ajbpv 0551B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai In Ita No.101/Cit(A)-16/2019-20 Dated 13.07.2022. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Vide Order Dated 25.12.2019. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Is As Regard To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.8 Lakhs As Unexplained Money U/S.69A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessee's wife, Yashoda, the money got transferred to her accoußt from that of assessee's bank account. Therefore, there is sufficient reason to believe that assessee's wife deposited the money to his account. This is not the case regarding assessee's father. It is not the case

Shri. Poonmaram K. Prajapati, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1953/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Poonam Vs. Ito – 19(2)(5) K.Prajapati Matrumandir, Room 81/83, Room No. 14, 4 No. 210, Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Prabhu Mumbai – 400007. Shri Rammandir Marg, Mumbai – 400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agmpp5641C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. P.M Gang.Ar Respondent By : Mr. B. Bagchi.Dr

For Appellant: Mr. P.M Gang.ARFor Respondent: Mr. B. Bagchi.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has obtained accommodation entries/bogus purchases bills from the six parties as per the information from Sales Tax Department. The AO has reason to believe that there is income escaping the Assesseement and the assessee is one of the beneficiary and issued notice

Pine Tree Consultants P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle - 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1695/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No.1696/Mum/2020 (A.Y: 2013-14) Pine Tree Consultants Vs. Dcit, Circle – 3(2)(2) Pvt Ltd, No.104, Raheja Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, 1St Floor, Mk Road, Free Press Journal Mumbai -400020. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp8816F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Deepika Arora.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Cit(A))-8 Mumbai Passed Under Sec250 Of The Act

For Appellant: Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Deepika Arora.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

appeal no 2- Re-opening of assessment The re-opening of assessment to be successful has to be tested on the touchstone of 'reason to believe' on the basis of tangible material that income has escaped ITA No. 1695, 1696& 1697/Mum/2020 Pine Tree Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. assessment. There should ... this the Assessing Officer has re-opened the assessment of the appellants. The appellants submit that it is trite law that the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and the same is liable to be re-opened has to be viewed from the standpoint

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Karburi Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 461/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 461, 462 & 463/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Dcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S Karburi Properties Room No. 1928, 19Th Ltd., Floor, Air India Bldg 324, Master Mind – Iv Nariman Point, Royal Palms, Aarey Milk Mumbai – 400 021. Colony, Goregoan East, Mumbai - 400065

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh. DR &

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

information from DGIT(Inv) that the assessee has invested Rs.3.5 Crs. share application money in M/s Shree Global Tradefin Ltd. The AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 21.03.2014.In response to notice, the assessee has filed

Shri. Arvind Satinderpal Ahuja, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1101/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Arvinderpal Satinderpal Ahuja V. Ito (International Taxation) -1(1)(1) Room No. 114, 1St Floor 21/23A, Sunset Heights Scindia House, Ballard Pier Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400050 Mumbai - 400038 Pan: Addpa9627P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Toprani & Ms. Krupa Toprani Department By : Shri Manoj Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Toprani &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

opening the assessment under section 147 of the I.T. Act based on borrowed satisfaction and without applying his mind and his own reason to believe i.e. based on alleged information received from the DDIT (Inv.) Unit - IX (2), Mumbai on the basis of 7 Shri Arvinderpal Satinderpal Ahuja which search

Seth Industries Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT C 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4685/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.4685/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Seth Industries Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit Circle- 2(3)(2) 16, Ashoka Shopping Centre, Room No. 552, Vs. Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Aayakar Bhavan Crawford Market Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs9189D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri Sunil Lalchandani Revenue By: Shri. Mahender Ahuja सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement; 16/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri SunilFor Respondent: Shri. Mahender Ahuja

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

material facts about said sale transaction and not offered income which resulted into escapement of income of Rs.1.71,00,000/- Hence, I have reason to believe that Rs.1,71,00,000/- has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 within the meaning of section

Navkar Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4722/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri.Mahender Ahuja

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 151

have reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act, without satisfying the condition precedents ie, The AO ought to have recorded reason to believe escapement of 3 M/S NAVKAR ENTERPRISES income. For adjudicating this legal issue let us have a look at the reasons recorded by the AO to reopen ... form of bogus sales amounting to Rs3,00,52,199/- during A.Y. 2007-08. In view of the above I've reason to believe that Income of the assessee for A.Y. 2007-08 to the tune of Rs3,00,52,199/- has escaped assessment the meaning of provisions

Sgn Distributors India, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 946/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesgn Distributors Vs. Ito – 23(3)(3) 105, Veena Beena Mumbai-400021. Shopping Centre, Opp Bandra Rly Stn, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adwpr3175L Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Vimal Punmiya.Ar Revenue By : Ms.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Richa Gulati.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus unsecured loans and advances to various SGN Distributors, Mumbai. beneficiaries and the assessee is one of the beneficiary. The AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Whereas the assessee has filed the return of income

Norma Lydia Ayyash, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2760/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenorma Lydia Ayyash Vs. Ito – 24(3)(2) 15, Goundowli, Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, East, Mumbai – 400069 Mumbai – 400005. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akipa4487B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Ms.Mansi Ayachit.Ar Revenue By : Ms.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms.Mansi Ayachit.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Richa Gulati.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 195

made time deposits and cash deposits in the bank account and TDS was deducted on interest income. The Assessing officer(A.O.) has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. The AO referred to the notices issued to the assessee