← 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

M/S. Gita Refractories Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 11(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 81/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR), ITAT, Bangalore
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151

contention of the ld. AR that the satisfaction recorded by the AO is not clear and the reason to suspect cannot replace the reason to believe for reopening of assessment u/s. 147. In this regard, the ld. AR relied on the Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha ... assessment. Before proceeding further we will look at the provisions of section 147 Income escaping assessment 147. 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 sections 148 to 153, assess

ITO 24(2), Mumbai vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2011–

ITA 2339/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

above, the notice issued by the AO to the Appellant under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of aforesaid "reasons to believe" which reflect the "borrowed satisfaction" is bad in law. And further, since the foundation of the impugned assessment order framed thereafter under Section ... verified the facts and mere receipt of information from any source cannot tantamount to tangible material for the formation of reason to believe. The learned AR also placed reliance upon various decisions in support of its submission. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available

Income Tax Officer 24(2) (1), Mumbai vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2011–

ITA 2338/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

above, the notice issued by the AO to the Appellant under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of aforesaid "reasons to believe" which reflect the "borrowed satisfaction" is bad in law. And further, since the foundation of the impugned assessment order framed thereafter under Section ... verified the facts and mere receipt of information from any source cannot tantamount to tangible material for the formation of reason to believe. The learned AR also placed reliance upon various decisions in support of its submission. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available

Rajdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, WD. 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2053/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
Section 147Section 148Section 194A

stands and without adding or deducting from the words used by Parliament, it is clear that upon the formation of a reason to believe under section 147 and following the issuance of a notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer has the power to assess or reassess the income, which ... reason to believe had escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax. The words "and also" cannot be ignored. The interpretation which the Court places on the provision should not result in diluting the effect of these words or rendering any part of the language used by Parliament

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

that it has escaped assessment. In the counter-affidavit filed by the ITO in the High Court, it was stated that he had reason to believe, in consequence of information in his possession, that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax had escaped assessment. His information was that, notwithstanding

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

that it has escaped assessment. In the counter-affidavit filed by the ITO in the High Court, it was stated that he had reason to believe, in consequence of information in his possession, that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax had escaped assessment. His information was that, notwithstanding

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

that it has escaped assessment. In the counter-affidavit filed by the ITO in the High Court, it was stated that he had reason to believe, in consequence of information in his possession, that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax had escaped assessment. His information was that, notwithstanding

DCIT, Chennai vs. B.V.Reddy Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1914/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act”. 6.1 We find that the assessee has fully and truly ... jurisdiction to reopen an assessment, is the Assessing Officer should have reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment should not be on the basis of change of opinion, as otherwise the power of reassessment would

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, as filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008–09, is allowed

ITA 6673/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Mane a/w
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

books of the assessee company are not genuine loans, but were only bogus entries whose source is not genuine. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 issued, after obtaining approval ... entry in favour of the assessee. 18. For initiating the proceeding under section 147 of the Act, the AO is required to have ‘reason to believe’ that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The existence of a valid ‘reason to believe’ is a sine qua non to exercise

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, as filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008–09, is allowed

ITA 6669/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Mane a/w
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

books of the assessee company are not genuine loans, but were only bogus entries whose source is not genuine. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 issued, after obtaining approval ... entry in favour of the assessee. 18. For initiating the proceeding under section 147 of the Act, the AO is required to have ‘reason to believe’ that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The existence of a valid ‘reason to believe’ is a sine qua non to exercise

Saravana Stores, Chennai vs. ACIT, C.C-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 488/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

passed on 25.3.2014 and hence the reopening is untenable in law. 5. The CIT (A) further failed to appreciate that there was no reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and in the absence of any fresh tangible material pointing to failure on the part of assessee to disclose

Vikram Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officr-19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1151/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 68

amounting to Rs.40,36,930/- during the impugned year and since, the assessee had not filed his return of income, the AO had reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and thereby reopened the case of the assessee. The AO added the impugned amount to the total income

Twenty First Century Management Services Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 860/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 860/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009 - 10 Twenty First Century The Acit, Management Services Ltd., Vs. Corporate Circle-3(1), G3 No.67, Eldams Road, Chennai Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaact 2397L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 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)-7, Chennai, In Ita No.404(T)/Cit(A)-7/2016-17 Dated 21.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 28.06.2016. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That This Appeal Is Delayed By 169 Days. This Appeal Was Filed Before Tribunal Only On 26.10.2020 & As Per Form 36, The Order Of Cit(A) Was Received On 11.03.2020. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Delay Was Due To The Spread Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Nationwide Lockdown Imposed By The Government From 25.03.2020. The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Miscellaneous Application No.665 Of 2021 Vide Order Dated 23.03.2020 Has Given Directions That The Delay Are To Be Condoned During This Period 15.03.2020 To 14.03.2021 & They Have Condoned The Delay Up To 28.02.2022 In Miscellaneous Application No.21 Of 2022 Vide Order Dated 10.01.2022. In Term Of The Directions Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court, We Condone The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By Assessee & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 47

decided the legal issued vide para 6 by observing as under:- Before making assessment u/s 147, the AO must have "reasons to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The important words in section 47 are "has reason to believe" and these words are stranger than the words ... based on non-specified information. Phoolchand Bajrang Lal Vs ITO 919930 203 ITR 456 (SC). In my considered view the AO has sufficient "reason to believe" which formed the basis for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. Moreover, the re-opening was effected on the basis of fresh

Zarco Realities Pvt. Ltd., Lower Parel vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 48, Churchgate

ITA 923/MUM/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Satyapal Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

issue of notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2015. after duly recording the reasons for reopening. 7.3 In my opinion, the AO has got reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. At the stage of re-opening of the assessment, only prima-facie believe should be there at the level

M/S. Bhairav Tube (India ), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD19(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 646/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S, Bhairav Tube (India) Ito Wd19(1)(2) Shop No. 10,Ground Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 6Th Khotwadi Lane, Vs. Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 004 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aawft1198E Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ujjwal Chavan Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ujjwal Chavan SR AR
Section 114Section 143Section 147Section 148

recorded the reasons which are not based on tangible materials or cogent facts which should have direct reduce and live link to his reason to believe, 646/MUM/2022 M/s Bhairav Tube (India): A.Y. 2011-12 therefore, Assessing Officer has not initiated reassessment. proceedings as per the norms laid down by Jurisdictional

Keyman Advisory Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centra Circle-7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1495/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhkeyman Advisory Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Central Floor-3, Plot-90, Ganpati Circle-7(1), Niwas, Dhirubhai Parekh Aayakar Bhavan, Marg, Ladwadi, Kalbadevi Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadck2215K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Vimal Punmiya Respondent By : Jagdish Jangid Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Jagdish Jangid
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 274Section 68

beyond a period of 4 years an assessment already completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and without having reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and therefore, the reopening is bad in law. ITA No. 1495/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 2 Keyman Advisory Services

Shri Amin Badruddin Keshwani, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, Mumbai

ITA 1125/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 145Section 147Section 234BSection 234D

would still be open to him to contest the reopening on the ground that there was either “no 6 Shri Amin Badruddin Keshwani reason to believe” or that the alleged reason to believe is not relevant for the formation of the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment ... Because expression “reason to believe” cannot have two different standards or sets of meaning, one applicable where the assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act. 12. So in this case also no doubt assessment was framed under section 143(1) of the Act but assessee has a right

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

BRIEF PROPOSITION: 1. Notice under Section 148 cannot be issued on mere suspicion. Reopening is bad in Law as there exist no reason to believe that income has escaped Assessment and there is no independent application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. Reopening is not permitted ... power to re-open the assessment provided there is tangible material" to come to conclusion that there was escapement of income from assessment. Reason to believe' has to be construed in logical term'. A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. 14. The AO had no such

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

BRIEF PROPOSITION: 1. Notice under Section 148 cannot be issued on mere suspicion. Reopening is bad in Law as there exist no reason to believe that income has escaped Assessment and there is no independent application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. Reopening is not permitted ... power to re-open the assessment provided there is tangible material" to come to conclusion that there was escapement of income from assessment. Reason to believe' has to be construed in logical term'. A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. 14. The AO had no such

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

BRIEF PROPOSITION: 1. Notice under Section 148 cannot be issued on mere suspicion. Reopening is bad in Law as there exist no reason to believe that income has escaped Assessment and there is no independent application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. Reopening is not permitted ... power to re-open the assessment provided there is tangible material" to come to conclusion that there was escapement of income from assessment. Reason to believe' has to be construed in logical term'. A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. 14. The AO had no such