“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

Mrs Mamta Sharad Gupta, Thane vs. The ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1553/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Phadke, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kanhiya Lal Kanak, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

against purchase of flat in building Horizon /Twilight, developed by Cosoms Group. In view of the above information the AO had reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs 4,00,000/- (appellant's share being 1/2 ) had escaped assessment, in the hands of the appellant

Mr. Shahzad Ebrahim Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 21(3)93), Mumbai

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

ITA 578/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmr. Shahzad Ebrahim Vs. Ito, – 21(3)(3) Zaveri Piramal Chamber, 301/302 Buildage Lalbaug, Parel, House, 146, Veer Mumbai - 400012 Savarkar Marg, Mahim (W), Mumbai – 400016 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapz0335M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Dinkle Hariya.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 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) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Dinkle Hariya.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Pramod Nikalje.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

beneficiary. The assessee has obtained accommodation bills/purchase bills from two parties aggregating to Rs. 40 lakhs. Therefore the A.O. 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 Ld. AR of the assessee filed

Shree Ahuja Properties & Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -6 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7215/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Shree Ahuja Vs. Dcit – Cc – 6(2) Properties & Developers Room No. 1903, 19Th A/201, Rajpipla, Opp Floor, Air India Bldg, Standard Chartered Nariman Point, Bank, Santacruz(W), Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400054. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abefs2387M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms.Kavita Kaushik.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 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) 54 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Kavita Kaushik.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

valid, are recorded upon borrowed satisfaction i.e. on the direction of the third party i.e. DDIT (Inv.) and not on the basis of reason to believe of the AO himself; and hence, the reopening of the assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Without prejudice to above ... Group revealed cash transaction of unaccounted money in respect of purchases, sales, loan transaction, accommodation entries, expense inflation etc. therefore, there is a reason to believe that income to the extent of amount exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/- has escaped assessment because of undisclosed cash income obtained by the assessee

Bombay Real Estate Development Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-1(1)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 513/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/wFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

details of the said dividend and STCL are available on the record. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that an amount of Rs.9,21,282/– for the A.Y.2010-11 has escaped assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for this year. Hence ... year under consideration. 15. For initiating the proceeding under section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to have „reason to believe‟ that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In present case, reassessment proceedings are nothing but mere change of opinion by Assessing Officer with regards

Chouhan Builders India Housing Development P. L Td vs. Mumbai

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

ITA 4793/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalchouhan Builders India Housing Development P. Ltd. 104A, Sajid Tower, Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaccc1839Q ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit -9(2)(1), R.No. 665A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. K. Shivram With Ms. Neelam Jadhav Respondent By : Sh. Pankaj Kumar Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 31.05.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit (A) 16 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit (A)) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Assessment Of The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.15,00,000/- As Against Loss Of Rs. 89,84,401.24 Returned By The Appellant. 2. Order Dt.31/05/19 Passed By Ld. Cit(A) As Well As Order Dt.27/12/18 Passed By Ld. Ao Were Bad In Law As The Same Were Not Based On Facts But Were Based On Assumptions Or Surmises Or Erroneous Findings & Has Not Considered Submissions Made By Appellant Or Authorities Cited By Appellant.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Shivram with Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Sh. Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 69A

conducted any independent enquiry either before issue of Notice u/s 148 of the Act or during reassessment proceedings, hence the AO has no reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case ... statement in his possession and more so, in the said statement no where name of appellant company appears. 3.4 Ld. AO has no reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment for A.Y. 16-17 in view of fact that in alleged part Statement, Akshay J. Doshi has admitted that

Ibm India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 584/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 29Section 36(1)(vii)Section 50B

learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the learned AO has failed to substantiate the test of "reason to believe" which is sin qua non for initiating the reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in concluding that there was new tangible material noticed and that ... upon the Assessing Officer to initiate re-assessment proceeding upon his mere change of opinion. We, however, may hasten to add that if "reason to believe" of the assessing Officer if founded on an information which might have been received by the Assessing Officer after the completion of assessment

Late Rehmatunisa A. Sayed Through L/H Salimullah A. Sayed (Son), Mumbai vs. The ITO-34(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1405/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyallate Rehmatunisa A. Vs. The Ito – 34(2)(1) Sayed Through L/H Bandra Kurla Salimullah A. Sayed Complex, C-11 (Son), Bandra(East), C/11/82, Mig Colony, Mumbai- 400051. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Dbpps7580J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Kalpesh Turlkar.Ar Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Kalpesh Turlkar.ARFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 210Section 234A

terms and conditions of redevelopment agreement. Since the assessee has not filed the return of income and the Assessing officer (A.O.) has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In compliance to the notice

M/S. Gokaldas Images Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Bangalore

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

ITA 2359/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

year as the escaped income is more than Rs.1 lakh. C) In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has clearly stated lie has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is not based

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit (It) – 3(3)(2) Vs. Shri Venu Raman 16Th Floor, Room No. Kumar, 1634, Air India Bldg, Flat No. 2, Hermes Nariman Point, House-Iii, Mumbai – 400020. Worli Sea Face, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapk9122E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Achal Sharma. Cit. Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 57, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.Achal Sharma. CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Vijay Mehta.AR

Section 114Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(2)

considered by the assessee in his return of income Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai filed for the said assessment year and the A.O. has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice U/sec148 of the Act. The assessee has filed objections on the validity of reassessment proceedings

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 147Section 250Section 35

That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the test of "reason to believe" which is prima facie an essential element to initiate the reassessment proceedings was not substantiated by the Learned AO. 2.3 That on facts and circumstances of the case ... deduction. 13. The Ld.AR emphasised that the initiation of reassessment proceedings is nothing but mere change of opinion, as there is no reason to believe, based on independent material that, income has escaped assessment. He placed heavy reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT

M/S. Multiventure Hotesl Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-10(2) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1520/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Multiventure Vs. Ito – 10(2)(4) Hotels Pvt Ltd Room No. 213, 2Nd Shop No. 15, Anuradh Floor, Aayakar Society, Next To Fire Bhavan, Mk Road, Brigade, Sv Road, Irla Mumbai-400020 Bridge, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm4179E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Vishnu Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Kavita Kaushik.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.06.2022 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: M/S Multiventure Hotels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Incorrect & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Mr.Vishnu Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Kavita Kaushik.DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

obtained unsecured loan of Rs. 25 lakhs and the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was not explained. Therefore the A.O. has reason to believe that the income has been escaped assessment and after recording the reasons has issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, the notice

M/S. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Delhi)(URO), CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. [1976] 105 ITR 212 (SC). In this case the assessee has every reason to believe that the evidences tendered by the parents, who were Departmental witnesses, were all favourable to assessee and therefore, the Department was apprehensive of providing these statements

Suresh Seksaria, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1578/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsuresh Seksaria Vs. Cit(A) – Nfac 5Th Floor, Seksaria Delhi. Chambers, 139 Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafps0078K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ameet Patel.Ar Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 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:

For Appellant: Shri Ameet Patel.ARFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69Section 69C

Mumbai that the assessee was involved in obtaining the bogus purchase bills and had made investments. Therefore Suresh Seksaria, Mumbai the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In compliance to notice, the Ld.AR of the assessee filed

Dy CIT CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1278/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Central Circle-2(3), Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Prathishtha 401, Deepak Bldg. 3Rd Floor, S.V. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Vs. Road, Vile Parle-W, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aahps 5253 J Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 12/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 1278/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Dcit Central Circle-2(3), 401, Deepak Bldg. 3Rd Floor, S.V. Road, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Vile Parle-W, Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400056. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps 5253 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajan Vora, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/06/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271DSection 69A

Vipul Dilipbhai Shah 13 ITA Nos. 1277 & 1278/M/2021 & CO No. 12/M/2022 3. Therefore, the AO has a reason to believe that income of Rs.3,92,00,000/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 within the meaning of clause (c) of Explanation-2 of section

Dy CIT CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1277/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271DSection 69A

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai

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

ITA 963/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Dcit, Vs. Shri Dilip J Thakkar Central Circle – 6(4) 12/22B, Acropolis, Room No. 1925, 19Th Malabar Hills, Floor, Air India Bldg, Mumbai – 400006. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpt9000H Appellant .. Respondent The Dcit, Vs. Smt Indira D. Thakkar Central Circle – 6(4) 12/22B, Acropolis, Room No. 1925, 19Th Malabar Hills, Floor, Air India Bldg, Mumbai – 400006. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpt3389E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Takkar.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.G.Mehta.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 149(1)

after the assessee 6 (1978) 2 SCR 272 specifically asked for reasons, the revenue only relied upon facts to show that there was reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and this escapement was due to the nondisclosure of material facts. There is nothing in the reasons to indicate

Goldiam Jewellery Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT (Central)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 729/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT–DR

Section 10ASection 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 253(1)(c)Section 263Section 263(1)

Minal Gems (PAN – AHOPJ 4856D) – Rs. 48,09,162 5. On the basis of that the AO had reasons to believe that above mentioned amount of ₹ 23,196,950 chargeable to tax had been escaped assessment in your case for AY 2010 – 11. Accordingly, the AO was convinced and satisfying ... assessment years for which scrutiny assessments have been abated. Thus, your case squarely falls into this scenario. In view of the above, / have reason to believe that an amount of Rs.2,31,96,950 chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for AY 2010-11, by reason of the failure

Goldiam Jewellery Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 728/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT–DR

Section 10ASection 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 253(1)(c)Section 263Section 263(1)

J.K.Brothers, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer WD -1, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the assessees appeals ITA

ITA 53/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 J.K. Brothers, Income Tax Officeward-1, B/131, Simandhar City, Gandhinagar-382017. Vs. Trimandir Sankul, Ahmedabad Kalol Highway, Adalaj, Gandhinagar-382421. Pan No. Aadfj5267 B Appellant Respondent : Mr. Deepak Shah, Ar Assessee By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Revenue By : 26/05/2022 Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DRFor Respondent: Mr. Deepak Shah, AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Mumbai that the assessee was involved in obtaining the bogus purchase bills as per the Sales Tax Department Maharashtra. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that there is escapement of income and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. In compliance to notice, the Ld. AR appeared from time

J.K.Brothers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD-1, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the assessees appeals ITA

ITA 52/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DRFor Respondent: Mr. Deepak Shah, AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)