“reason to believe”

M/S. Arshiya Rail Infrastucture Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - CC-6(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

action, the assessee has failed to disclose truly and fully material facts necessary for its assessment. In view of these facts, I have reason to believe that the income amounting to Rs.5,54,21,934/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income ... action, the assessee has failed to disclose truly and fully material facts necessary for its assessment. In view of these facts, I have reason to believe that the income amounting to Rs.4,27,38,210/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income

Smt Kiran Anil Shah, Mumbai vs. Prin. Comm of Income Tax -27, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhsmt. Kiran Anil Shah Vs. Pcit-27, 3Rd Floor, B-14, Plot No. R. No. 401, 4Th Floor, 33/34, Yogakshema Chs Tower No. 6, Vashi Ltd, Nathpai Nagar, Railway Station Ghatkopar- East, Commercial Complex, Mumbai – 400 077 Vavhi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Anrps9911N Appellant .. Respondent

total credit appearing in the bank account remained unexplained in the hands of the assessee. Therefore the case was reopened with a reason to believe that an amount of Rs.1,70,25,993/- being total credit in the bank account during F.Y. 2011-12 had escaped assessment. In response ... assessee that when the very basis of reasons recorded by the A.O ultimately the A.O had not made any addition, then the primary reason to believe that income of the assessee had escaped assessment failed and such reassessment cannot be treated as valid order in the eyes

DCIT Central Circle(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, Cc-2(1) Vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Old Cgo Bldg, 804, Mehta, 8Th Floor, Mk Road, 602-603, Prasad Mumbai – 400020. Chambers,Opera House, Mumbai - 400004 Pan/Gir No. Aaopm3805D Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 87/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita 439/Mum/2022) (A.Y: 2006-07) Shri Kumar Rasikal Vs. Dcit, Cc-2(1) Mehta, Old Cgo Bldg, 804, 8Th 602-603, Prasad Floor, Mk Road, Chambers,Operahouse, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai - 400004 Pan/Gir No. Aaopm3805D Appellant .. Respondent

mentioned. Whereas the assessee is one of the bank account holder where the base note is received. Therefore the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. 3. In compliance to the notice, the assessee has filed the revised

Sureaksha DB Realty, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 30(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Suraksha Db Realty The Dy. Commissioner Of Behind Orchid Suburbia, Ground Income-Tax 30(3), Floor, Off; Link Road, Kandivali Room No.601, C-13, Vs. 6Th Floor, Bkc, (West), Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs0694R Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Department By : Shri Op Sharma, Cit Dr

return of income and the information received were tangible material in the hands of AO, which resulted into the formation of the reason to believe that the income to the extent of ₹ 980,300/– chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for assessment year 2011 – 12. Once such a reason ... well within his powers to issue notice u/s 147/148 as per procedure prescribed in that Section. Such formation of the reason to believe was on the basis of the information available which the AO was in his possession and acted upon and therefore the reopening of the assessment in this

M/S. Shree Sant Gajanan Nagri Sahkari Patsahth, Thane vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Kalyan

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Shree Sant Vs. Dcit-2, Gajanan Nagri Sahkari 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Patsahtha, Wayle Nagar, Shop No. 8/Plot No. Khadakpada, 48, Parshwnath Kalyan West – 421 301. Towers, Suryoday Chs Maharashtra. Ltd, Near Dns Bank, Ambernath, Thane -421501. Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Aafts9566E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Viraj Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Shri. Tejinder Pal Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.09.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S Shree Sant Gajanan Nagri Sahkari Patsahth, Mumbai. Legal:

with Ambarnath Jai Hind Co-operative Bank during the F.Y.2011-12. The assessee has not filed the return of income, therefore the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and further notice

Faith Finsock P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 12(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyalfaith Finstock Pvt. Ltd. 214, Linkway Estate Premises Chs Ltd. Chincholi Bunder, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aaacf7046E ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-12(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. Kavita Kaushik Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

alleged information received from the DCIT. Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai without there being any tangible material for the formation of the reason to believe, and hence initiation of the reassessment proceedings is unsustainable in law. 4. That the learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both ... unsustainable in law. 5. That the learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that reasons to believe are justifiable and to justify the reopening of the assessment, only reasons recorded has to be looked into, and since the reasons to believe

Iftekhar Mukhtar Siddiqui, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(1)(5), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyaliftekhar Mukhtar Siddiqui, Room No. 60, Prem Nagar, Behind Lucky Hotel, Sion Agra Road, Sion, Mumbai-400022 Pan: Bgsps0603N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-26(1)(5), C-1 Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. Kavita Kaushik Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

information received from investigation wing. c) Reassessment proceeding cannot be initiated when the LD. CIT(A) have reason to suspect and not reason to believe. 2. On the facts and circumstances of case and law the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order under section

Raj Rayon Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.830/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Raj Rayon Industries Ltd बिधम/ Pcit-3 Survey No. 177/1/3 & 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. 177/1/4, Village Surangi, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Silvassa-396230 (Ut Of Road, Mumbai-400020. Dadra & Nagar Haveli & Daman & Diu)-396230. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr7820E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish Mody Revenue By: Shri T. Sankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 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. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-03 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 03.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

date of approval of Resolution Plan under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on the ground that Respondent No. 1 – Assessing Officer had a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax of the Corporate Debtor has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income

The ACIT Cent. Cir -5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

other hand, Section 147/148 of the Act empowers an Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment wherever he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This power under Section 147/148 of the Act is subject to various limitation provided therein. The power of reopening of assessment ... after having issued intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, there can be no occasion for the Assessing Officer to have reason to believe the income chargeable had escaped assessment, for the reason that the Assessing Officer can issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, to complete

ACIT Cent. Cir -5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

other hand, Section 147/148 of the Act empowers an Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment wherever he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This power under Section 147/148 of the Act is subject to various limitation provided therein. The power of reopening of assessment ... after having issued intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, there can be no occasion for the Assessing Officer to have reason to believe the income chargeable had escaped assessment, for the reason that the Assessing Officer can issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, to complete

Samrat Bhupendra Sheth, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3) (2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesamrat Bhupendra Sheth Vs. Ito, Ward – 32(3)(2) A-1403, 14Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Mahavir Nagar, Ekta Complex, Mumbai Terrence Tower, Kamla 400051. Vihar Sports Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400067 Pan/Gir No. : Aaqps6075B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bharat Kumar.Ar Respondent By : Shri Rp Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

bills. The AO find that the assessee has obtained the bogus bills from three parties aggregating to Rs.46,62,238/- and therefore has reason to believe that the income has escaped Samrat Bhupendra Sheth, Mumbai. assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently the assessee has made request

Chartered Finance Management Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir2(1) (1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalechartered Finance Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Management Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 201, Wakefield House, Mk Road, Churchgate Sprott Road, Ballard Mumbai – 400020. Estate, Mumbai – 400038

order in respect of donations made by the assessee and deduction claimed u/s 35Ac of the Act. The AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In compliance to the notice the assessee has filed the return of income

DCIT 14(1) (10, Mumbai vs. M/S. K. Rasiklal Exim Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, Circle – 14(1)(1) Vs. M/S. K Rasiklal Exim Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 339/41, 2Nd Floor, Mk Road, Rawal Chambers, Mumbai- 400020. Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400003. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck4895P Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

assessee has obtained bogus purchase entries which are in the nature of none genuine purchases from the dealers. Therefore the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In compliance, the assessee has filed the return of income

Bhikhabhai Somabhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1) (2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebhikhabhai Somabhai Vs. Ito – 19(1)(2) Patel, 2Nd Floor, R. No. 204, 117-B, Panchratna, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Mama Parmanand Marg Road,Grant Road (W), Opera House, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai -400004. Pan/Gir No. : Abbpp1621Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Rp Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

information from the DDIT(Inv), Mumbai that the assessee has obtained the bogus purchases bills from party/ entry provider and the A.O. has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. The A.O. after recording the reasons for reopening has issued notice

Sameer Moin Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO 31 (3) (3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesameer Moin Khan Vs. Ito – 31(3)(3) A/105, Prathmesh Kutir, Room No. 408B, 4Th Opp. Agarwal Estate, Floor, C-13, Captain Samant Marg, Pratyaksha Kar Jogeswari (W), Bhavan, Bkc Mumbai-400012.. Mumbai- 400 051. Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk0293H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Dharn Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri Rp Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 144 R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Sameer Moin Khan., Mumbai. 1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Na The Reassessment Proceeding Initiated In Case Of The Appellant Vide Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27.03.2018 Is Bad In Law.

assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 33,26,199/- in savings bank account. Therefore the A.O has reason to believe that income has escaped the assessment and after recording the reasons for reopening has issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and there was no compliance. Subsequently