“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

Devkinandan Bagadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amar Jit Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare, Sr. A.R. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

been worked out at Rs. 97,68,665/-. In view of the foregoing facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax in the form of interest in cash of at least of Rs. 97,68,665/- over and above the official portion of interest ... obtaining approval of the superior officers. Merely stating the reasons in a letter addressed by the AO, is not enough. Then, the reasons to believe escapement of income need to spell out all the reasons and grounds available with the AO for reopening the assessment. The reasons must also paraphrase

Monika Anand Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 5561/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Issuing The Same Were Baseless & As Such, The Reassessment Proceedings In Pursuance Thereof Is Vitiated. 2) The Ld. Cit (A) Also Failed To Consider That The Impugned Order Is Passed Mechanically By The Ld. Assessing Officer Without Affording An Opportunity To The Appellant To Defend Her Case & As Such, The Same Is Liable To Be Annulled On Account Of Non Application Of Mind & Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 3) The Ld. Cit (A) Also Failed To Consider That The Appellant Was Never Given Any Opportunity To Cross-Examine The Person Who Made The Statement Against The Appellant, Much Less, The Alleged Material Was Never Provided To Her & As Such, The Same Is Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. 4) The Ld. Cit (A) Lost Sight Of The Fact That Any Statement Made By & Person U/S. 132 [4] Cannot Be Used Against Any Third Person & Therefore

Section 132Section 132(4)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

M/S. Nitesh Estates Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1486/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

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

unbilled revenue and the same could have been offered as income as the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as per provisions of Sec.147 of the IT Act.” 3. The assessee filed its objections ... assessment. He submitted that, there was only ‘reason to suspect’ that, income has escaped assessment, and the Ld.AO do not have any ‘reason to believe’. The Ld.AR submitted that the reopening cannot be initiated, without there being a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. 8. It is submitted

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Srinivasa Trust, Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1475/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Chandrashekar, A.R

Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148

observed that the reason recorded does not ITA No.1469, 1473 & 1475/Bang/2018 M/s. Srinivasa Trust, Bangalore Page 3 of 11 contain the finding that “reason to believe that such escapement is by reason of the omission or violation on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly ... passed for A.Y 2006-07 dated 07-11-2008 assessing the total income as Nil. Hence I have a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is more than Rs. One lakh.” 3. On going through the above we find that survey action u/s 133A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Srinivasa Trust, Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1473/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Chandrashekar, A.R

Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Srinivasa Trust, Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1469/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Chandrashekar, A.R

Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148

Shri. Pravin Futarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 4540/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Shri Pravin Futarmal Jain The Income Tax Officer, Office No.6, Jewel Co-Op Society Ward 18(2)(5) Ltd. 3Rd Floor, 44/46, Dhanji Vs. Earnest House Ncpa Marg Street, Mumbai-400 003 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacpj5627L

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

Proceeding initiated under section 147 /148 of the Act is on the basis of reason to suspect and not on reason to believe. Shri Pravin Futarmal Jain, AY 10-11 (d) There is no new tangible material in possession of the Assessing Officer which justify issuance of notice

Merck Performance Materials Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1210/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1210/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Merck Performance Materials बिधम/ The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Chemtreat Composites India Tax – 15(2)(2), Mumbai, Pvt. Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Godrej One, Pirojsha Nagar, M.K. Road, Eastern Express Highway, Mumbai - 400020 Vikhroli (East), Mumbai- 400079 Pan : Aabcc5609B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) For The Appellant/Assessee: Arati Vissanji For The Respondent/Revenue: C.T. Mathews सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary: 1. By Way Of The Present Appeal The Appellant/Assessee Has Challenged The Order Dated, 02.12.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 24, Mumbai (Hereafter Referred To As „The Cit(A)‟] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter Referred To As „The Act‟), Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Had Dismissed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, Dated 29.12.2017, Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Limited :391 ITR 274 (SC). In reply, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. The contention of the Appellant that there was no tangible material is incorrect. Notice under section ... Ground No. 1.1 and 1.2 the Appellant has challenged the re-assessment proceedings on the ground of absence of tangible material for forming reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. Ground No. 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 pertain to the merits of the addition/disallowance made in the re-assessment proceedings

Lokesh Talanki, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Waghale CAFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addln CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

relevant here to look at the provisions of section 147 which reads as follows 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 or reassess ... relevant assessment year in which the assessment u/s.143(3) was completed. Hence what is relevant here is the AO’s ‘reason to believe’ that any ‘income has escaped assessment’ where the original assessment is completed accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court

Chetana Dilip Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 5765/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT–DR

Section 131Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

also not been accounted for in the books of M/s. Bhoomi Group. 3. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that extra consideration of Rs.14,00,000, paid by the assessee in cash for purchasing the said flat is nothing but income generated ... assessee out of sources not disclosed to the Income Tax Department. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs.14,00,000, or any other income which comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer during the course of re– assessment

Shri Shailesh Jayant Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - 29(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3817/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 3817/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2012-13) Shri Shailesh Jayant Shah Vs Ito 29(3)(3), Room No.C-10/307, 210, Shop No.5 Bandra Kurla Complex, Pratyakshakar Iron Market, Masjid Bhavan, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 009 051 Pan : Aaeps1841D Appellant Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

Section 144 of the Act., determining total income at Rs 2,21.54.560/-. - “4. Considering the above facts of the case, I have reason to believe and conclude that the assessee has defaulted in not getting his books of accounts audited as per provisions of section 44AB

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(3)(1), Bangalore vs. Shri B S Yediyurappa, Bangalore

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed, as not pressed

ITA 14/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Asst.Commissioner Of Shri B.S. Yediyurappa, Income Tax, No.381, Davalgiri, Ii Main Circle - 1(3)(1) Vs. Vi Cross, Off 80 Ft Road, Bengaluru Rmv 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru Pan – Aaapy4922F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 148

RNSIL, in 2008- 09. Therefore, the assessee is in an influential position and has direct connection with the RNSlL. Thus, there is a reason to believe that the assessee is one recipient of sundry payments from RNSIL to the tune ... assessee carried appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) observed with regard to reopening of assessment that the AO recorded reasons to believe based on information received consequent to search and seizure carried in the case of M/s. RNS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.. It has been mentioned

ITO Ward - 1(1), Kalyan vs. Shri Riten Kantilal Gada, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 2017/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2017/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito, Ward -1(1) बिधम/ Shri Riten Kantilal Gada 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, F. No.202, Green Acres, Vs. Wayale Nagar, Kalyan West- Anjur Phata, Near Oswal Saga, Kamatghar Road, 421301. Bhiwandi-421302. & Cross Objection No.148/Mum/2021 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2017/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Riten Kantilal Gada बिधम/ Ito, Ward -1(1) 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, F. No.202, Green Acres, Vs. Anjur Phata, Near Oswal Wayale Nagar, Kalyan West- Saga, Kamatghar Road, 421301. Bhiwandi-421302. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acmps3743C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri R.A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Mayur J. Gosrani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-02, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11. C.O. No.148/Mum/2021 A.Y.2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Mayur J. GosraniFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)

Section 143Section 147

Income Tax Act, 1961. Further Ld. CIT(A) neither provided any documentary evidence on the basis of which AO established a reason to believe for reopening of assessment nor provided Cross Examination of the concern third party even after specifically requested by the appellant during the course

Cachet Engineering P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)-4, Mumbai

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

ITA 1917/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1917/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Cachet Engineering Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Ito-12(1)-4 Ground Floor, Anandibai 145A, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Vs. Gosavi Chawl, Kurar K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Village, Malad (E)-400097. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc9354L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R.A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 19.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. That The Learned Cit (A), Mumbai Has Grossly Erred Both In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Reassessment Proceedings & Also Framing The Assessment Under Section 143(3)/147 Of The Act Determining The Income Of The Appellant At An Income Of Rs.5,05,00,000/- As Against Returned Loss Of Rs. 30,080/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 40A(3)Section 68

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. 2.2 That the learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both ... unsustainable in law. 2.3. That the learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that reasons to believe are justiciable and to justify the reopening of the assessment, only reasons recorded has to be looked into, and since the reasons to believe

Arihant Universal Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-01, Thane, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4342/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

assessee. They are :- Section 132(1) - If the concerned authority has in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that - (a) where a person fails to produce the books of accounts and other documents in response to notice u/s 142(1) or summons issued

Shri Rajeev Nataraj Legal Heir of Late Shri P Nataraj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-10(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 848/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR

Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 54

assessing officer, which has rendered the impugned Notice u/s 148 invalid.” Accordingly the above additional grounds stands admitted. 7. The Ld.AR submitted that “reason to believe” that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is a condition precedent to be satisfied before issuing the Notice u/s 148. It is settled ... irrational. The ‘belief’ must be reasonable and it must be based on the reasons which are relevant and material. It is submitted that ‘reason to believe’ cannot be conjured up either by misreading of the provisions of law or by misinterpretation of the binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court

ITO 10 (1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kailashnath Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6451/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

For Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 68

agreement with Mr. Gupta because the clear language of section 147 of the IT Act reveals that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income has escaped assessment, then, he can resort to such power. While it is true, as Mr. Gupta argued, that sub-section

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 270/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

words, the only condition that is to be satisfied in such cases is that the AG, for whatever reason, should have had a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. However, where initial proceeding was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and action u/s 147 /148 ... case of Asst. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (Supra) has also held that "The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe' would mean cause or, justification. If the AC has cause or, justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 269/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 268/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154