← 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

ITO 3(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Omega Investment & Properties Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 868/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.868/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Income Tax Officer 3(2) (4) बिधम/ M/S. Omega Investment & Room No. 673,6Th Floor, Properties Ltd Vs. 32-B, Jolly Maker Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, No.2 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai- 400020. 400021. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco0978L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By: Mr. Asif Karmani, Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Asif Karmani, Sr. AR
Section 148Section 254Section 80Section 80I

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 an information and belief based on reason. After a foundation based ... 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

The Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce Co.Ltd., Coimbatore vs. The DCIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 189/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

under consideration dated 24.12.2018 of the A0, was in confirmity with law, in the light of the reason to believe recorded and disclosed by the AO, in his letter dated 09.08.2018, for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, was non- existent to take it outside the scope ... deduction under section 80IA from A.Y. 2003-04, therefore, the ten years for claiming the deduction would expire in A.Y.2012-13. Thus, there was reasons to believe that assessee had wrongly claimed deduction u/s.80IA in the year under consideration and income to the tune

Mamta Lalit Jain, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1626/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
Section 131Section 147

Further, as income of Rs.4,09,500/- through sale of shares of M/s Gemstone Investment Ltd (GIL). 6. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income:- Analysis of the information received, reveals that the assessee has routed his unaccounted income of Rs.4,09,500/- through sale ... shares of M/s Gemstone Investment Ltd (GIL). In view of the above facts and material evidences, I have the reason to believe that assessee’s income of Rs.4,09,500/- has escaped assessment. 7. Applicability of the provisions of section 147 / 151 to the facts of the case. In this

Purandar Taluka Nagari Sahakai Patpedi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2659/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. K.C. Salvamani, CIT DR
Section 143Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 5Section 56Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld AO erred in issuing the notice u/s 148 without having reason to believe of escapement of income, thereby the re- assessment order u/s 147 is bad-in-law; On facts and circumstances of the case ... there has been cash deposits in the name of the assessee in Parshwanath Co.op Bank Ltd Kolhapur in the F.Y 2008-09.The AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 147 of the Act and the Assessee has not filed the return of income

Shri Pechimuthu Karuppiah, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Trichy

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

ITA 3153/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3153/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Pechimuthu Karuppiah, The Income Tax Officer, No.3/27, Thiruvalluvar Street, V. Ward 2(2), Kumaresapuram, Koothaipar Trichy. Post, Trichy – 620 013. [Pan: Aampk-5734-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. K. Ravi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

assessee could not able to explain source for cash deposits with necessary evidences, the AO was of the opinion that there is reason to believe that there is escapement of income chargeable to tax. Therefore, we are of the considered view that from the reasons recorded for re-opening

Alibhai Vadasaria Zulfikar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2403/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyalibhai Vadasaria Vs. Acit, Circle-17(1) Zulficar, 104, Dayal Room No. 117, 1 St Floor, Bhavan, Kesavji Naik Aaykar Bhavan, Road, Chinch Bunder, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400009 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaapz0795P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Mehul Jain
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

Respondent had issued a notice under Section 147 of the Act and passed the assessment order in the absence of reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to decide the said jurisdictional issue and erred in confirming the assessment order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hubballi vs. M/S. Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank Limited, Dharwad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 720/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D George, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 36

circumstances of the case. 2. The order of assessment is bad in law and void-ab-initio as the assessing officer had no reason to believe that the income of the Appellant has escaped assessment and reassessment amounted to merely reasons to suspect under the facts and circumstances

M/S Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Dharwad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hubballi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 611/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, C.A, S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D George, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 36

circumstances of the case. 2. The order of assessment is bad in law and void-ab-initio as the assessing officer had no reason to believe that the income of the Appellant has escaped assessment and reassessment amounted to merely reasons to suspect under the facts and circumstances

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2698/CHNY/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

commission to various parties, he has not rendered services to these three entities. Based on the findings of the survey, there was a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and hence, the assessment for the assessment year 2001-02 was reopened under section

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2697/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

commission to various parties, he has not rendered services to these three entities. Based on the findings of the survey, there was a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and hence, the assessment for the assessment year 2001-02 was reopened under section

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2696/CHNY/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

commission to various parties, he has not rendered services to these three entities. Based on the findings of the survey, there was a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and hence, the assessment for the assessment year 2001-02 was reopened under section

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2695/CHNY/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

commission to various parties, he has not rendered services to these three entities. Based on the findings of the survey, there was a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and hence, the assessment for the assessment year 2001-02 was reopened under section

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2694/CHNY/2018[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

commission to various parties, he has not rendered services to these three entities. Based on the findings of the survey, there was a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and hence, the assessment for the assessment year 2001-02 was reopened under section

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2693/CHNY/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

commission to various parties, he has not rendered services to these three entities. Based on the findings of the survey, there was a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and hence, the assessment for the assessment year 2001-02 was reopened under section

D.Srinivas Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2692/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

commission to various parties, he has not rendered services to these three entities. Based on the findings of the survey, there was a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and hence, the assessment for the assessment year 2001-02 was reopened under section

D.Srinivas Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2691/CHNY/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

commission to various parties, he has not rendered services to these three entities. Based on the findings of the survey, there was a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and hence, the assessment for the assessment year 2001-02 was reopened under section

Shri Hirachand Javerchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 32/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Hirachand Javerchand Jain Dcit Cc-4(2) 15, Dadi Seth Agairy Lane, Room No.-655, 6Th Floor, Kalbadevi, Mumbai- 400 002 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan No. Aadpj3101C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

section 1329, 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

Nagin G. Suthar, Mumbai vs. ITO 22 (2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3185/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: 07.09.2022
Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee had made purchase of Rs.74,33,239/- from alleged 18 hawala suppliers. 4. On this basis, the assessment was reopened for the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed, wherein the A.O. made

Virambhai Purshotamdas Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7341/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 7329 To 7331/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2007-08 To 2009-10) Shri Govindbhai Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(1) Tribhuvandas Patel Room No. 1908, 19Th (Prop. Of M/S G.T. Exports) Floor, Air India Building, 4/F Raghav Wadi, Nariman Point, Ground Floor, French Mumbai - 400021 Bridge, Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Ahbpp4781D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153D

Natasha Enterprises Rs.3,84,81,450/- Total Rs.7,71,13,270 On the basis of such information the A.O recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax to the amount of Rs.7,71,13,270/- had escaped assessment for assessment year 2007-08 within the meaning ... considered view that decision of the ld. CIT(A) that there was credible tangible material before the A.O on the basis of which reason to believe was recorded for 11 Appeals Shri Govindbhai Tribhuvandas patel Vs. DCIT, CC-5(1) 19 reopening the assessment is not required any interference. Accordingly

Bhavesh Kumar Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7337/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 7329 To 7331/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2007-08 To 2009-10) Shri Govindbhai Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(1) Tribhuvandas Patel Room No. 1908, 19Th (Prop. Of M/S G.T. Exports) Floor, Air India Building, 4/F Raghav Wadi, Nariman Point, Ground Floor, French Mumbai - 400021 Bridge, Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Ahbpp4781D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153D

Natasha Enterprises Rs.3,84,81,450/- Total Rs.7,71,13,270 On the basis of such information the A.O recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax to the amount of Rs.7,71,13,270/- had escaped assessment for assessment year 2007-08 within the meaning ... considered view that decision of the ld. CIT(A) that there was credible tangible material before the A.O on the basis of which reason to believe was recorded for 11 Appeals Shri Govindbhai Tribhuvandas patel Vs. DCIT, CC-5(1) 19 reopening the assessment is not required any interference. Accordingly